;^.-:^^r^V 


VARIOUS    FRAGMENTS 


VARIOUS   FRAGMENTS 


BY 


HERBERT    SPENCER 


NEW    YORK    AND    LONDON 

D.     APPLE TON     AND     COMPANY 

1910 


Copyright,  1893,  1900, 
By  D.  APPLETON  AND   COMPANY. 


PREFACE. 


Several  of  the  following  fragments  contain  ideas  and 
suggestions  whicli  ought  not,  I  think,  to  remain  buried, 
and  practically  lost,  in  their  original  places  of  publi- 
.^     cation.    Preservation  may,  I  think,  prove  to  be  of  some 
\      importance.     As  for  the  rest,  I  do  not  know  that  they 
y^       are  all  intrinsically  of  such  value  as  to  be  worthy  of  a 
^        permanent  form.     But  it  has  seemed  that  along  with 
republication   of  the   fragments   of  chief  significance, 
there  might  fitly  go  a  republication  of  those  of  less  sig- 
J       nificance,  which  would  not  have  been  worth  republish- 
ing by  themselves. 
X  H.  S. 

\1  July,  1897. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

The  bookselling-question 1 

An  element  in  method .3 

Professor  Cairnes's  criticisms 15 

Views  concerning  copyright 19 

A  rejoinder  to  Mr.  McLennan 70 

Prof.  Tait  on  the  formula  of  evolution       ....  83 

Ability  versus  information 99 

Book-distribution 101 

M.  de  Laveleye's  error 107 

Government  by  minority 120 

^-/—Evolutionary  ethics 121 

-i- Social  evolution  and  social  duty 130 

Parliamentary  Georgites  ........  134 

A  record  of  legislation 136 

Anglo-American  arbitration 140 

L^  Against  the  metric  system 142 

The  "  NET- price  "  system  of  bookselling 171 

I^^^Wrat  is  social  evolution? 197 

The  land  question       .        .  • 215 

The  metric  system  again 225 

Publishing  on  commission 239 

A  state-burden  on  authors 242 

The  South-African  war 246 

^ --An  inhumanity 248 

Appendices 251 

vii 


THE  BOOKSELLING-QUESTIOK 

In  April  1852  was  published  in  tlie  Westminster 
EevieWy  an  essay  on  "  The  Commerce  of  Literature," 
written  by  Mr.  (afterwards  Dr.)  Chapman,  then  a  pub- 
lisher and  the  owner  of  the  review.  The  picture  which 
it  drew  of  the  trade-regulations  and  their  results,  initi- 
ated an  agitation  among  authors,  in  which  I  took  part, 
and  in  furtherance  of  it  published  the  following  letter 
in  The  Times  for  April  5,  1852.  This  letter,  signed 
"  An  Author,"  I  reproduce  partly  because  it  shows  the 
condition  of  the  book-trade  in  the  middle  of  the  century, 
and  partly  because  it  bears  significantly  on  a  current 
question — namely  whether  the  system  then  in  force  shall 
be  re-established. 

Somewhat  more  than  a  year  since  I  published  a  work 
of  which  the  advertised  price  is  12s.  I  have  now  before 
me  an  account  up  to  Christmas  last,  wherein  I  find  my- 
self credited  with  the  copies  sold  at  the  rate  of  8s.  6d. 
each.  The  trade  custom  of  giving  25  for  the  price  of  24 
reduces  this  to  somewhat  less  that  8s.  2d.  Further,  my 
publisher  deducts  10  per  cent,  commission  for  all  sales 
he  makes  in  my  behalf;  so  that  ultimately  the  net  sum 
per  copy  payable  to  me  becomes  7s.  4d.     Out  of  this 

1 


2  THE  BOOKSELLING -QUESTION. 

7s.  4(1.  per  copy  I  liavc  to  pay  for  the  composition,  print- 
ing, paper,  and  binding;  for  the  advertising,  which 
threatens  to  reach  501.',  and  for  the  30  odd  copies  sent 
to  the  national  libraries,  newspapers,  and  reviews.  The 
result  is  that,  though  of  its  kind  the  book  has  been  a 
very  successful  one,  my  account  up  to  Christmas  last 
shows  a  balance  of  801.  against  me.  Possibly  in  18 
months  hence  the  work  will  have  paid  its  expenses,  and  I 
am  even  not  without  hope  that  it  will  leave  me  some 
lOL  in  pocket  as  a  reward  for  my  two  years'  toil.  Should 
it  do  so,  however,  I  shall  be  unusually  fortunate ;  for  my 
publisher  tells  me  that  the  great  majority  of  works  hav- 
ing, like  mine,  a  philosophical  character,  entail  loss. 

]N'ow,  with  all  their  skill  in  mystification,  the  Book- 
sellers' Association  will  find  it  difficult  to  show  that  out 
of  a  selling  price  of  12s.  the  proportion  set  aside  to  pay 
for  printing,  paper,  binding,  advertising,  gratuitous 
copies,  and  author,  should  be  Ts.  4d.,  while  4s.  8d.  may 
reasonably  be  charged  for  conveyance  to  the  reader.  In 
these  days  of  cheap  carriage  60  per  cent,  for  cost  of  pro- 
duction, and  40  per  cent,  for  porterage,  is  a  somewhat 
anomalous  division. 

Mr.  Murray  says  it  is  in  great  measure  an  author's 
question.  He  is  right,  and  authors  will  prove  much  less 
intelligent  than  I  take  them  to  be  if  they  do  not  see  how 
immensely  their  own  interests,  as  well  as  those  of  the 
public,  would  be  served  by  a  diminution  of  these  ex- 
orbitant trade  profits.  Let  any  one  refer  to  Porter^ s 
Progress  of  the  Nation,  and  there  note  the  many  cases  in 
which  a  small  reduction  of  price  has  been  followed  by  a 
great  increase  of  consumption,  and  he  cannot  avoid  the 
inference  that  a  20  per  cent,  decrease  in  the  vendor's 
charge  for  a  book  would  cause  a  much  more  than  pro- 


AN  ELEMENT  IN  METHOD.  3 

portionate  increase  in  its  sale ;  and  as  this  decrease  would 
be  in  the  cost  of  agency,  and  not  in  the  author's  price,  the 
extra  sale  would  be  so  much  clear  profit  to  him.  Books 
that  now  entail  loss  would  pay  their  expenses,  and  books 
that  now  only  pay  their  expenses  would  bring  something 
like  a  reasonable  remuneration. 

Should  the  publishers  and  booksellers  persist  in  their 
restrictive  policy,  which  is  injurious  not  only  to  authors 
and  the  public,  but,  I  believe,  in  the  long  run  even  to 
themselves,  I  think  that  as  a  matter  of  business  authors 
will  be  justified  in  declining  to  publish  with  any  who 
belong  to  the  combination. 

The  movement  initiated,  as  above  said,  by  Mr.  Chap- 
man's article,  resulted  in  an  agreement  to  arbitrate  be- 
tween the  authors  and  the  traders.  The  arbitrators  ap- 
pointed w^ere  Lord  Campbell,  Mr.  Grote,  and  Dean 
Milman.  They  gave  their  decision  in  favour  of  the 
authors,  and  the  trade-regulations  which  enforced  the 
system  of  "  net  prices  "  were  at  once  abolished. 


a:n'  eleme:n't  i^  method. 

The  fragment  wdiich  here  follows  was  originally  the 
introductory  chapter  to  Part  III  of  The  Principles  of 
Psy etiology  (first  edition  1855).  When  preparing  a  sec- 
ond and  enlarged  edition  of  the  work  in  1868 — 70,  I 
omitted  it  as  not  being  relevant  to  Psychology  in  par- 
ticular but  as  being  relevant  rather  to  science  in  general ; 


4  AN  ELEMENT  IN  METHOD. 

and  I  then  entertained  the  thought  of  making  it  part  of 
an  essay  ^'  On  Method  "  to  be  prefixed  to  First  Princi- 
ples.  Pre-occupation  prevented  me  from  carrying  out 
that  intention  and  ill-health  now  obliges  me  to  abandon 
it.  But  the  thought  which  this  fragment  embodies  has, 
I  think,  a  degree  of  importance  which  makes  preserva- 
tion desirable;  and  I  therefore  decide  to  include  it  in 
this  volume. 

It  is  a  dominant  characteristic  of  Intelligence,  viewed 
in  its  successive  .stages  of  evolution,  that  its  processes, 
^vhich,  as  originally  performed,  were  not  accompanied 
with  a  consciousness  of  the  manner  in  which  they  were 
performed,  t)r  of  their  adaptation  to  the  ends  achieved, 
become  eventually  both  conscious  and  systematic.  Xot 
simply  is  this  seen  on  comparing  the  actions  popularly 
distinguished  as  instinctive  and  rational;  but  it  is  seen 
on  comparing  the  successive  phases  of  rationality  itself. 
Thus,  children  reason,  but  do  not  know  it.  Youths  know 
empirically  what  reason  is,  and  when  they  are  reasoning. 
Cultivated  adults  reason  intentionally,  with  a  view  to 
certain  results.  The  more  advanced  of  such  presently 
inquire  after  what  manner  they  Tcason.  And  finally,  a 
few  reach  a  state  in  which  they  consciously  conform  their 
reasonings  to  those  logical  principles  which  analysis  dis- 
closes. To  exhibit  this  law  of  mental  progress  clearly, 
and  to  show  the  extent  of  its  application,  some  illustra- 
tions must  be  cited. 

Classification  supplies  us  with  one.  All  intelligent 
action  presupposes  a  grouping  together  of  things  pos- 
sessing like  properties.  To  know  Avhat  is  eatable  and 
what  not;  which  creatures  to  pursue  and  which  to  fly; 


AN  ELEMENT  IN  METHOD.  5 

wliat  materials  are  fit  for  tliese  purposes  and  what  for 
those;  alike  imply  the  arrangement  of  objects  into  classes 
of  such  nature  that,  from  certain  sensible  characteristics 
of  each,  certain  other  characteristics  are  foreseen.  It  is 
manifest  that  throughout  all  life,  brute  and  human,  more 
or  less  of  this  discrimination  is  exercised ;  that  it  is  more 
exercised  by  higher  creatures  than  by  lower;  and  that 
successful  action  is  in  part  dependent  on  the  extent  to 
which  it  is  pushed.  Kow  it  needs  but  to  open  a  work  on 
Chemistry,  Mineralogy,  Botany,  or  Zoology,  to  see  how 
this  classification  which  the  child,  the  savage,  and  the 
peasant,  carry  on  spontaneously,  and  without  thinking 
what  they  are  doing,  is  carried  on  by  men  of  science  sys- 
tematically, knowingly,  and  with  deliberate  purpose.  It 
needs  but  to  watch  their  respective  proceedings,  to  see 
that  the  degrees  of  likeness  and  unlikeness,  wiiich  uncon- 
sciously guide  the  ignorant  in  forming  classes  and  sub- 
classes, are  consciously  used  by  the  cultured  to  the  same 
end.  And  it  needs  but  to  contrast  the  less  advanced  men 
of  science  with  the  more  advanced,  to  see  that  this  process 
of  making  groups,  which  the  first  pursue  with  but  little 
perception  of  its  ultimate  use,  is  pursued  by  the  last  with 
clear  ideas  of  its  value  as  a  means  of  achieving  higher 
objects. 

So  too  is  it  with  nomenclatures.  Few  will  hesitate  to 
admit  that  in  the  first  stages  of  language,  things  were 
named  incidentally — not  from  a  recognition  of  the  value 
of  names  as  facilitating  communication;  but  under  the 
pressure  of  particular  ideas  which  it  was  desired  to  con- 
vey. The  poverty  of  aboriginal  tongues,  which  contain 
words  only  for  the  commonest  and  most  conspicuous 
objects,  serves  of  itself  to  show,  that  systems  of  verbal 
signs  were,  in  the  beginning,  unconsciously  extended  as 


6  AN  ELEMENT  IN  METHOD. 

far  only  as  necessity  impelled.  Xow,  however,  nomen- 
clatures are  made  intentionally.  A  new  star,  a  new 
island,  a  new  mineral,  a  new  plant  or  animal,  are  sever- 
ally named  by  their  discoverers  as  soon  as  found;  and 
are  so  named  with  more  or  less  comprehension  of  the 
purpose  which  names  subserve.  Moreover  it  may  be 
remarked  that  whereas,  in  the  primitive  unconscious 
process  of  naming,  the  symbols  employed  were,  as 
far  as  might  be,  descriptive  of  the  things  signified;  so, 
in  our  artificial  systems  of  names — and  especially  in 
our  chemical  one — a  descriptive  character  has  been 
designedly  given.  Add  to  which,  that  whereas  there 
spontaneously  grew  up  in  natural  nomenclatures,  cer- 
tain habitual  w^ays  of  combining  and  inflecting  names 
to  indicate  composite  and  modified  objects;  so,  in 
the  nomenclatures  of  science,  systematic  modes  of 
forming  compound  names  have  been  consciously 
adopted. 

Again,  a  similar  progress  may  be  traced  in  the  mak- 
ing of  inductions.  As  is  now  commonly  acknowledged, 
all  general  truths  are  either  immediately  or  mediately 
inductive — are  either  themselves  derived  from  aggrega- 
tions of  observed  facts,  or  are  deduced  from  truths  that 
are  so  derived.  The  grouping  together  of  the  like  co- 
existences and  sequences  presented  by  experience,  and 
the  formation  of  a  belief  that  future  coexistences  and  se- 
quences will  resemble  past  ones,  is  the  common  type  of 
all  initial  inferences,  whether  they  be  those  of  the  infant 
or  the  philosopher.  Up  to  the  time  of  the  Greeks,  man- 
kind had  pursued  this  process  of  forming  conclusions, 
unknowingly,  as  the  mass  of  them  pursue  it  still.  Aris- 
totle recognized  the  fact  that  certain  classes  of  conclu- 
sions were  thus  formed;  and  to  some  extent  taught  the 


AN  ELEMENT  IN  METHOD.  Y 

necessity  of  so  forming  tliem.  But  it  was  not  until  Bacon 
lived,  that  tlie  generalization  of  experiences  was  erected 
into  a  method,  ^ow,  however,  that  all  educated  men  are 
in  a  sense  Bacon's  disciples,  w^e  may  daily  see  followed 
out  systematically,  and  with  design,  in  the  investigations 
of  science,  those  same  mental  operations  which  mankind 
at  large  have  all  along  unwittingly  gone  through,  in 
gaining  their  commonest  knowledge  of  surrounding 
things.  And  further,  in  the  valuable  ''  System  of  Logic  " 
of  John  Mill,  we  have  now  exhibited  to  us  in  an  organ- 
ized form,  those  more  complex  intellectual  procedures 
which  acute  thinkers  have  ever  employed,  to  some  ex- 
tent, in  verifying  the  aboriginal  inductive  process — pro- 
cedures which  the  most  advanced  inquirers  are  now  be- 
ginning to  employ  with  premeditation,  and  with  a  recog- 
nition of  their  nature  and  their  purpose. 

Another  illustration  may  be  drawn  from  the  first  part 
of  this  w^ork.  On  reconsidering  the  chapter  treating  of 
the  Universal  Postulate,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  canon  of 
belief  there  enunciated  as  the  one  to  be  used  in  testing 
every  premiss,  every  step  in  an  argument,  every  conclu- 
sion, is  one  which  men  have  from  the  beginning  used  to 
these  ends;  that  beliefs  which  are  proved  by  the  incon- 
ceivableness  of  their  negations  to  invariably  exist,  men 
have,  of  necessity,  always  held  to  be  true,  though  they 
have  not  knowingly  done  this;  and  that  the  step  remain- 
ing to  be  taken,  was  simply  to  apply  this  test  consciously 
and  systematically.  It  will  also  be  seen  that  the  like  may 
be  said  of  the  second  canon  of  belief  contained  in  that 
chapter;  viz.  that  the  certainty  of  any  conclusion  is 
great,  in  proportion  as  the  assumptions  of  the  Universal 
Postulate  made  in  reaching  it  are  few.  For  as  was 
pointed  out  people  in  general  habitually  show  but  little 


8  AN  ELEMENT  IN  METHOD. 

confidence  in  results  reached  by  elaborate  calculations, 
or  by  long  chains  of  reasoning;  whilst  they  habitually 
show  the  greatest  confidence  in  results  reached  by  direct 
perception;  and  these  contrasted  classes  of  results  are 
those  which  respectively  presuppose  very  many  and  very 
few  assumptions  of  the  Universal  Postulate.  In  this  case 
therefore,  as  in  the  other,  the  rational  criterion  is  simply 
the  popular  criterion  analyzed,  systematized,  and  applied 
with  premeditation. 

In  further  exemplification  of  this  law  I  might  en- 
large upon  the  fact,  that  having  found  habit  to  generate 
facility,  we  intentionally  habituate  ourselves  to  those 
acts  in  which  facility  is  desired ;  upon  the  fact,  that  hav- 
ing seen  how  the  mind  masters  its  problems  by  proceed- 
ing from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  we  now  consciously 
pursue  our  scientific  inquiries  in  the  same  order;  upon 
the  fact,  that  having,  in  our  social  operations,  spontane- 
ously fallen  into  division  of  labour,  we  now,  in  any  new 
undertaking,  introduce  division  of  labour  intentionally. 
But  without  multiplying  illustrations,  it  will  by  this  time 
be  sufficiently  clear,  that,  as  above  said,  not  only  be- 
tween the  so-called  instinctive  processes  and  rational 
ones,  is  there  a  difference  in  respect  of  the  consciousness 
w^ith  which  they  are  performed,  but  there  are  analogous 
differences  between  the  successive  gradations  of  ration- 
ality itself. 

Are  w^e  not  here  then,  led  to  a  general  doctrine  of 
methods  ?  In  each  of  the  cases  cited,  we  see  an  arranged 
course  of  action  deliberately  pursued  wdth  a  view  to  spe- 
cial ends — a  method ;  and  on  inquiring  how  one  of  these 
methods  differs  from  any  conscious  intelligent  procedure 
not  dignified  by  the  title,  we  find  that  it  differs  only  in 
length  and  complication,     l^eglecting  this  distinction  as 


AN  ELEMENT  IN  METHOD.  9 

a  merely  conventional  one — ceasing  to  regard  methods 
objectively,  as  written  down  in  books,  and  regarding 
them  subjectively,  as  elaborate  modes  of  operation  by 
which  the  mind  reaches  certain  results — we  shall  see, 
that  they  may  properly  be  considered  as  the  highest  self- 
conscious  manifestations  of  the  rational  faculty.  And  if, 
viewed  analytically,  all  methods  are  simply  complex  in- 
tellectual processes,  standing  towards  conscious  reasoning 
much  as  conscious  reasoning  stands  towards  unconscious 
reasoning,  and  as  unconscious  reasoning  stands  towards 
processes  lower  in  the  scale — if  further,  in  the  several  in- 
stances above  given,  methods  arose  by  the  systematiza- 
tion  and  deliberate  carrying  out  of  mental  operations 
which  were  before  irregularly  and  unwittingly  pursued 
— may  we  not  fairly  infer  that  all  methods  arise  after 
this  manner?  That  they  become  methods,  when  the 
processes  they  embody  have  been  so  frequently  repeated 
as  to  assume  an  organized  form?  And  that  it  is  the  fre- 
quent repetition,  which  serves  alike  to  give  them  definite- 
ness,  and  to  attract  consciousness  to  them  as  processes  by 
which  certain  ends  have  been  achieved.  Is  it  not  indeed 
obvious,  a  priori,  that  no  method  can  be  practicable  to 
the  intellect  save  one  which  harmonizes  with  its  pre- 
established  modes  of  action?  Is  it  not  obvious  that  the 
conception  of  a  method  by  its  promulgator  implies  in  the 
experiences  of  his  own  mind,  cases  in  which  he  has  suc- 
cessfully followed  such  method?  Is  it  not  obvious  that 
the  advance  he  makes,  consists  in  observing  the  processes 
through  which  his  mind  passed  on  those  occasions,  and 
generalizing  and  arranging  them  into  a  system?  And  is 
it  not  then  obvious  that,  both  in  respect  of  origin  and 
applicability,  no  method  is  possible  but  such  as  consists 
of  an  orderly  and  habitual  use  of  the  procedures  which 


10  AN  ELEMENT  IN  METHOD. 

the  intellect  spontaneously  pursues,  but  pursues  fitfully, 
incompletely,  and  unconsciously?  The  answers  can 
scarcely  be  doubtful. 

By  thus  carrying  consciousness  a  stage  higher,  and 
recognizing  the  method  by  which  methods  are  evolved, 
we  may  perhaps  see  our  way  to  further  devices  in  aid  of 
scientific  inquiry.  As  in  the  case  of  deductive  logic,  and 
classification,  and  nomenclature,  and  induction,  and  the 
rest,  it  happened  that  by  becoming  conscious  of  the  mode 
in  wdiich  the  mind  wrought  in  these  directions,  men  were 
enabled  to  organize  its  workings,  and  consequently  to 
reach  results  previously  unattainable;  so,  it  is  possible 
that  by  becoming  conscious  of  the  method  by  which 
methods  are  formed,  we  may  be  assisted  in  our  search 
after  further  methods.  If  in  the  instances  given,  the 
method  of  forming  methods  was  that  of  observing  the 
operations  by  ^vhich  from  time  to  time  the  mind  spon- 
taneously achieved  its  ends,  and  arranging  these  into  a 
general  scheme  of  action  to  be  constantly  followed  in 
analogous  cases;  then,  in  whatever  directions  our  modes 
of  inquiry  are  at  present  unmethodized,  our  policy  must 
be  to  trace  the  steps  by  which  success  is  occasionally 
achieved  in  these  directions;  in  the  hope  that  by  so 
doing,  we  may  be  enabled  to  frame  systems  of  procedure 
which  shall  render  future  successes  more  or  less  sure. 
That  there  is  scope  for  this  cannot  be  doubted.  On  re- 
membering how  much,  even  of  the  best  thinking,  is  done 
in  an  irregular  way;  how  little  of  the  whole  chain  of 
thought  by  which  a  discovery  is  made,  is  included  in  the 
bare  logical  processes;  and  how  unorganized  is  the  part 
not  so  included;  it  will  be  manifest  that  there  are  intel- 
lectual operations  still  remaining  to  be  methodized.  And 
here  may  fitly  be  introduced  an  example,  to  which,  in 


AN  ELEMENT  IN  METHOD.  11 

fact,  tlie  foregoing  considerations  are  in  a  manner  iutro- 
ductorj. 

Every  generalization  is  at  first  an  hypothesis.  In 
seeking  out  tlie  law  of  any  class  of  phenomena,  it  is  need- 
ful to  make  assumptions  respecting  it,  and  then  to  gather 
evidence  to  prove  the  truth  or  untruth  of  the  assump- 
tions. The  most  rigorous  adherent  of  the  inductive 
method,  cannot  dispense  with  such  assumptions;  seeing 
that  without  them,  he  can  neither  know  what  facts  to 
look  for,  nor  how  to  interrogate  such  facts  as  he  may 
have.  Hypotheses,  then,  being  the  indispensable  step- 
ping-stones to  generalizations — every  generalization  hav- 
ing to  pass  through  the  hypothetic  stage — it  becomes 
a  question  whether  there  exists  any  mode  of  guiding  our- 
selves towards  true  hypotheses.  At  present,  hypotheses 
are  chosen  unsystematically — are  suggested  by  cursory 
inspections  of  the  phenomena;  and  the  seizing  of  right 
ones,  seems,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  a  matter  of 
accident.  May  we  not  infer  however,  from  the  peculiar 
skill  which  some  men  have  displayed  in  the  selection  of 
true  hypotheses,  that  there  is  a  special  kind  of  intellec- 
tual action  by  which  they  are  distinguishable.  To  call 
the  faculty  shown  by  such  men,  genius,  or  intuition,  is 
merely  to  elude  the  question.  If  mental  phenomena  con- 
form to  fixed  laws,  then,  an  unusual  skill  in  choosing  true 
hypotheses,  means  nothing  else  than  an  unusual  tendency 
to  pursue  that  mental  process  by  which  true  hypotheses 
are  reached;  and  this  implies  that  such  a  process  exists. 

To  identify  this  process  is  the  problem:  to  find  how, 
when  seeking  the  law^  of  any  group  of  phenomena,  we 
may  make  a  probable  assumption  respecting  them — how 
we  may  guide  ourselves  to  a  point  of  view  from  which 
the  facts  to  be  generalized  can  be  seen  in  their  funda- 


12  AN  ELEMENT  IN  METHOD. 

mental  relations.  Evidently,  as  tlie  tiling  wanted  is  al- 
ways an  unknown  thing,  the  only  possible  guidance  must 
be  that  arising  from  a  foreknowledge  of  whereabouts  it 
is  to  be  found,  or  of  its  general  aspect,  or  of  both.  If  all 
true  generalizations  (excluding  the  merely  empirical 
ones)  should  possess  a  peculiarity  in  common;  and  this 
peculiarity  should  be  one  not  difficult  of  recognition ;  the 
desired  guidance  may  be  had.  That  such  a  peculiarity 
exists,  will  by  this  time  have  been  inferred;  and  it  now 
remains  to  inquire  what  it  is. 

Most  are  familiar  with  the  observation,  that  viewed 
in  one  of  its  chief  aspects,  scientific  progress  is  constantly 
towards  larger  and  larger  generalizations — towards  gen- 
eralizations, that  is,  which  include  the  generalizations 
previously  established.  Further,  the  remark  has  been 
made,  that  every  true  generalization  commonly  affords 
an  explanation  of  some  other  series  of  facts  than  the 
series  out  of  the  investigation  of  wdiich  it  originated.  In 
both  of  which  propositions  we  have  partial  statements  of 
the  truth,  that  each  onward  step  in  science  is  achieved 
when  a  group  of  phenomena  to  be  generalized  is  brought 
under  the  same  generalization  with  some  connate  group 
previously  considered  separate.  Let  us  look  at  a  few 
cases. 

In  the  Calculus  it  was  thus,  when  the  relationships 
of  extension,  linear,  superficial,  and  solid,  were  found  to 
conform  to  the  same  law  with  those  of  numbers  that  are 
multiplied  into  each  other;  and  again,  when  numbers 
themselves,  whether  representing  spaces,  forces,  times, 
objects,  or  what  not,  were  found  to  possess  certain  gen- 
eral properties,  capable  of  being  expressed  algebraically, 
which  remain  the  same  whatever  the  magnitudes  of  the 
numbers.     In  Mechanics  it  was  thus,  when  a  formula 


AN  ELEMENT  IN  METHOD.  13 

was  discovered  wliicli  brought  tlie  equilibrium  of  the 
scales,  under  the  same  generalization  with  the  equi- 
librium of  the  lever  with  unequal  arms:  and  again,  when 
the  discovery  that  fluids  press  equally  in  all  directions, 
afforded  explanations,  alike  of  their  uniform  tendency 
towards  horizontality,  and  of  their  power  to  support  float- 
ing bodies.  Thus  too  was  it  in  Astronomy,  when  the 
apparently  erratic  movements  of  the  planets,  and  the 
comparatively  regular  movement  of  the  moon,  were  ex- 
plained as  both  due  to  similar  revolutions ;  and  when  the 
celestial  motions,  and  the  falling  of  rain-drops,  were  ex- 
plained as  different  manifestations  of  the  same  force. 
It  was  thus  in  Optics,  when  the  composite  nature  of  light 
was  discovered  to  be  the  passive  cause  of  the  prismatic 
spectrum,  of  the  rainbow,  and  of  the  colours  of  objects; 
in  Thermotics,  when  the  expansion  of  mercury,  the  ris- 
ing of  smoke,  and  the  boiling  of  water,  were  recognized 
as  different  manifestations  of  the  same  law  of  expansion 
by  heat;  in  Acoustics,  when  the  doctrine  of  undulations 
was  found  to  apply  equally  to  the  phenomena  of  har- 
monies, of  discords,  of  pulses,  of  sympathetic  vibrations. 
Similarly,  it  was  thus  in  Chemistry,  when  the  burning 
of  coal,  the  rusting  of  iron,  and  the  wasting  away  of 
starved  animals,  w^ere  generalized  as  instances  of  oxida- 
tion. It  was  thus,  too,  when  the  electro-positive  and 
electro-negative  relations  of  the  elements,  were  brought 
in  elucidation  of  their  chemical  affinities.  And  once 
more  it  was  thus,  when,  by  the  investigations  of  Oersted 
and  Ampere,  the  phenomena  of  Electricity  and  Mag- 
netism were  reduced  to  the  same  category;  and  the  be- 
haviour of  the  magnetic  needle  was  assimilated  to  that 
of  a  needle  subjected  to  the  influence  of  artificial  elec- 
tric cuiTents. 


14  AN  ELEMENT  IN  METHOD. 

Xow  this  circumstance,  tliat  a  true  generalization 
usually  brings  within  one  formula  groups  of  phenomena 
which  at  first  sight  seem  unallied,  is  itself  a  more  or 
less  reliable  index  of  the  truth  of  a  generalization.  For 
manifestly,  to  have  found  for  any  series  of  facts,  a  law 
which  equally  applies  to  some  apparently  distinct  series, 
implies  that  we  have  laid  hold  of  a  truth  more  general 
than  the  truths  presented  by  either  series  regarded  sepa- 
rately— more  general  than  the  truths  which  give  the 
special  character  to  either  series.  If,  in  the  instances 
above  cited,  and  in  hosts  of  others,  we  find  that  the 
most  general  fact  displayed  by  any  class  of  phenomena, 
is  also  the  most  general  fact  displayed  by  another  class, 
or  by  several  other  classes;  then,  we  may  conversely 
infer,  on  finding  a  general  fact  to  be  true  of  several 
cases  in  each  of  two  separate  classes,  that  there  is  consid- 
erable probability  of  its  being  true  of  all  the  cases  in 
each  class.  Or,  to  exhibit  the  proposition  in  another 
form: — A  peculiarity  observed  to  be  common  to  cases 
that  are  widely  distinct,  is  more  likely  to  be  a  funda- 
mental peculiarity,  than  one  which  is  observed  to  be 
common  to  cases  that  are  nearly  related. 

Hence,  then,  is  deducible  a  method  of  guiding  our- 
selves towards  true  hypotheses.  For  if  a  characteristic 
seen  equally  in  instances  usually  placed  in  different 
categories,  is  more  likely  to  be  a  general  characteristic 
than  one  seen  equally  in  instances  belonging  to  the  same 
category;  then,  it  is  obviously  our  policy,  when  seeking 
the  most  general  characteristic  of  any  category,  not  to 
compare  the  instances  contained  in  it  with  each  other, 
but  to  compare  them  with  instances  contained  in  some 
allied  category.  AVe  must  seek  out  all  the  categories 
with  which  alliance  is  probable;  compare  some  of  the 


PROFESSOR  CAIRNES'S  CRITICISMS.  15 

phenomena  included  in  each  with  some  of  the  phenom- 
ena under  investigation;  ascertain  by  each  comparison 
what  there  is  common  to  both  kinds;  and  then,  if  there 
be  any  characteristic  common  to  both,  inquire  whether 
it  is  common  to  all  the  phenomena  we  are  aiming  to 
generalize:  in  doing  which  we  may  with  advantage  still 
act  out  the  same  princij)le,  by  comparing  first  the  cases 
that  are  most  strongly  contrasted.  The  adoption  of  this 
course  secures  two  advantages.  Xot  only  must  any  pe- 
culiarity which  may  be  hit  upon,  as  common  to  phe- 
nomena of  separate  classes,  have  a  greater  probability  of 
being  a  generic  peculiarity,  than  any  one  of  the  many 
peculiarities  possessed  in  common  by  phenomena  of  the 
same  classes;  but  further,  we  shall  be  more  likely  to  ob- 
serve all  that  there  is  in  common  between  diverse  phe- 
nomena placed  side  by  side,  than  we  shall  to  observe  all 
that  there  is  in  common  between  phenomena  so  much 
alike  as  to  be  classed  together.  Fewer  hypotheses  are 
possible;  all  that  are  possible  are  likely  to  be  thought 
of;  and  of  those  thought  of,  each  has  a  much  higher 
chance  of  being  true. 


PKOFESSOK   CAIKXES'S   CKITICISMS. 

Prof.  Cairnes  having,  in  The  Fortnightly  Review 
for  January  and  February  1875,  criticized  my  views 
concerning  social  evolution  and  its  relations  to  individ- 
ual volitions  and  activities,  I  published  in  the  February 
number  the  following  reply,  which,  by  the  Editor's 
courtesy,  I  was  allowed  to  append  to  Prof.  Cairnes's  con- 


16  PROFESSOR  CAIRNES'S  CRITICISMS. 

eluding  article.  The  prevalence  of  tlie  error  into  wliich 
Prof.  Cairnes  fell,  makes  desirable  tlie  reproduction  of 
this  explanation  excluding  it. 

Were  it  possible  to  expound  clearly,  in  one  small 
volume,  a  doctrine  which  three  large  volumes  are  to  be 
occuj^ied  in  expounding,  it  would  be  needless  to  write 
the  three  large  volumes.  Further,  in  a  work  on  the 
study  of  a  science  devoted  to  the  discussion  of  diffi- 
culties and  preparations,  and  referring  to  its  facts 
and .  inferences  mainly  in  elucidation  of  the  study, 
it  is  hardly  to  be  expected  that  the  principles  of  the 
science  can  be  set  forth  with  the  exactness  and  the 
qualifications  proper  to  a  work  on  the  science  itself; 
indications  and  outline  statements  only  are  to  be 
looked  for. 

I  say  this  by  way  of  implying  that  the  objections 
raised  by  Prof.  Cairnes  to  views  incidentally  sketched 
in  the  Study  of  Sociology,  will  be  adequately  met  by  the 
full  exposition  which  the  Principles  of  Sociology  is  to 
contain.  This  exposition  will,  I  believe,  satisfy  Prof. 
Cairnes  that  he  does  not  quite  rightly  apprehend  the 
general  doctrine  of  evolution,  and  the  doctrine  of  social 
evolution  forming  part  of  it.  For  example,  so  far  is  it 
from  being  true,  as  he  supposes,  that  the  existence  of 
stationary  societies  is  at  variance  with  the  doctrine,  it  is, 
contrariwise,  a  part  of  the  doctrine  that  a  stationary 
state,  earlier  or  later  reached,  is  one  towards  which  all 
evolutional  changes,  social  or  other,  inevitably  lead. 
(See  First  Principles,  chap.  XXII,  "  Equilibration.") 
And  again,  so  far  is  it  from  being  true  that  the  slow 
social  decays  which  in  some  cases  take  place,  and  the  dis- 
solutions which  take  place  in  others^  are  incongruous 


PROFESSOR  CAIRNES'S  CRITICISMS.  17 

with  the  doctrine,  it  is,  contrariwise,  a  part  of  it  that 
decays  and  dissolutions  must  come  in  all  cases.  (See 
First  Principles,  chap.  XXIII,  "  Dissolution.") 

Leaving  the  rest  of  Prof.  Cairnes's  objections  to  be 
answered  by  implication  in  the  volumes  which  I  hope 
in  time  to  complete,  I  will  here  say  no  more  than  may 
suffice  to  remove  the  impression  that  I  advocate  passivity 
in  public  affairs.  From  the  principles  laid  down,  he  con- 
siders me  bound  to  accept  the  absurd  corollary  that 
political  organization  is  superfluous.  To  recall  his  illus- 
tration of  insurance  against  fire,  he  argues  that  since 
loss  by  fire  is  not  diminished  by  insurance  companies, 
but  only  re-distributed,  I  must,  in  pursuance  of  my  ar- 
gument, hold  that  insurance  companies  are  useless !  The 
passage  which  Prof.  Cairnes  quotes  is  directed  against 
"  the  current  illusion  that  social  evils  admit  of  radical 
cures,"  in  immediate  ways;  and  insists  ^^  that  the  ques- 
tion {n  any  case  is  whether  re-distribution,  even  if  prac- 
ticable, is  desirable :  "  the  obvious  implication  being  that 
some  re-distributions  are  desirable  and  some  not. 

I  am  chiefly  concerned,  however,  to  repudiate  the 
conclusion  that  "  the  private  action  of  citizens  "  is  need- 
less or  unimportant,  because  the  course  of  social  evolu- 
tion is  determined  by  the  natures  of  citizens,  as  working 
under  the  conditions  in  which  they  are  placed.  To  assert 
that  each  social  change  is  thus  determined,  is  to  assert 
that  all  the  egoistic  and  altruistic  activities  of  citizens 
are  factors  of  the  change ;  and  is  tacitly  to  assert  that  in 
the  absence  of  any  of  these — say  political  aspirations, 
or  the  promptings  of  johilanthropy — the  change  will  not 
be  the  same.  So  far  from  implying  that  the  efforts  of 
each  man  to  achieve  that  which  he  thinks  best,  are  un- 
important, the  doctrine  implies  that  such  efforts,  sever- 


18  niOFESSOIl  CAIRXES'S  CRITICISMS. 

ally  resulting  from  the  natures  of  the  individuals,  are 
indispensable  forces.  The  correlative  duty  is  thus  em- 
phasized on  page  105  of  First  Principles: — 

'^  It  is  not  for  nothing  that  he  has  in  him  these  sym- 
pathies with  some  principles  and  repugnance  to  others. 
He,  with  all  his  capacities,  and  aspirations,  and  beliefs, 
is  not  an  accident,  but  a  product  of  the  time.  He  must 
remember  that  while  he  is  a  descendant  of  the  past, 
he  is  a  parent  of  the  future;  and  that  his  thoughts 
are  as  children  born  to  him,  which  he  may  not  care- 
lessly let  die.  He,  like  every  other  man,  may  prop- 
erly consider  himself  as  one  of  the  myriad  agencies 
through  whom  works  the  Unknown  Cause;  and  when 
the  Unknown  Cause  produces  in  him  a  certain  be- 
lief, he  is  thereby  authorized  to  profess  and  act  out 
that  belief.  For,  to  render  in  their  highest  sense  the 
w^ords  of  the  poet, — 

^'  '.  ,  .  Nature  is  made  better  by  no  mean. 
But  nature  makes  that  mean:  over  that  art 
Which  you  say  adds  to  nature,  is  an  art 
That  nature  makes.' '' 

That  there  is  no  retreating  from  this  view  in  the 
work  Prof.  Cairnes  criticizes,  is  sufficiently  shown  by 
its  closing  paragraph: — 

"  Thus,  admitting  that  for  the  fanatic  some  wild  an- 
ticipation is  needful  as  a  stimulus,  and  recognizing  the 
usefulness  of  his  delusion  as  adapted  to  his  particular 
nature  and  his  particular  function,  the  man  of  higher 
type  must  be  content  w^itli  gTcatly-moderated  expecta- 
tions, while  he  perseveres  with  undiminished  efforts. 
He  has  to  see  how  comparatively  little  can  be  done,  and 
yet  to  find  it  worth  wliile  to  do  that  little:  so  uniting 
philanthropic  energy  with  philosophic  calm." 

I  do  not  see  how  Prof.  Cairnes  reconciles  with  such 
passages,  his  statement  that  "  according  to  Mr.  Spencer, 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  19 

the  future  of  the  human  race  may  be  safely  trusted  to 
the  action  of  motives  of  a  private  and  personal  kind — 
to  motives  such  as  operate  in  the  production  and  distri- 
bution of  wealth,  or  in  the  development  of  language." 
This  statement  is  to  the  effect  that  I  ignore  the  "  action 
of  motives  "  of  a  higher  kind ;  whereas  these  are  not  only 
necessarily  included  by  me  in  the  totality  of  motives, 
but  repeatedly  insisted  upon  as  all-essential  factors.  I 
am  the  more  surprised  at  this  misapprehension,  because, 
in  the  essay  on  "  Specialized  Administration,"  to  which 
Prof.  Cairnes  refers  (see  Fortnightly  RevieWy  for  De- 
cember, 1871),  I  have  dwelt  at  considerable  length  on 
the  altruistic  sentiments  and  the  resulting  social  activi- 
ties, as  not  having  been  duly  taken  into  account  by  Prof. 
Huxley. 

As  Prof.  Cairnes  indicates  at  the  close  of  his  first 
paper,  the  difficulty  lies  in  recognizing  human  actions 
as,  under  one  aspect,  voluntary,  and  under  another  pre- 
determined. I  have  said  elsewhere  all  I  have  to  say  on 
this  point.  Here  I  wish  only  to  point  out  that  the  con- 
clusion he  draws  from  my  premises  is  utterly  different 
from  the  conclusion  I  draw.  Entering  this  caveat,  I 
must  leave  all  further  elucidations  to  come  in  due  course. 


VIEWS  CON-CERNmG  COPYRIGHT. 

In  1877  a  Royal  Commission  sat  to  take  evidence  on 
the  general  question  of  Copyright,  and  I  was  invited  to 
give  evidence.  The  following  result  is  reproduced  from 
the  official  "  Minutes  of  Evidence  "  given  on  March  6 


20  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

and  March  20,  1877.  On  a  subsequent  occasion  (May, 
1881),  at  a  meeting  of  the  E'ational  Association  for  the 
Promotion  of  Social  Science,  I  expressed  some  further 
views,  which  were  published  in  vol.  XIV  of  the  society's 
Proceedings. 

(Chairman.)  I  need  hardly  ask,  you  are  a  writer  of 
philosophical  and  scientific  books? — I  am. 

Would  you  give  the  Commission  your  experience  of 
the  terms  on  which  you  published  your  first  book? — 
I  published  my  first  work,  ^'  Social  Statics,''  at  the  end 
of  1850.  Being  a  philosophical  book  it  was  not  pos- 
sible to  obtain  a  publisher  who  would  undertake  any 
responsibility,  and  I  published  it  at  my  own  cost.  A 
publisher  looks  askance  at  philosophy,  and  especially 
the  philosophy  of  a  new  man;  hence  I  published  on 
commission. 

Would  you  like  to  state  what  the  result  was? — The 
edition  was  750;  it  took  14  years  to  sell. 

Then  with  respect  to  your  next  work? — In  1855  I 
published  the  "Principles  of  Psychology";  I  again 
tried  in  vain  to  get  a  publisher,  and  published  again  at 
my  own  cost.  There  were  750  copies,  and  the  sale  was 
very  slow.  I  gave  away  a  considerable  number,  and  the 
remainder,  I  suppose  about  650,  sold  in  12^  years. 

Have  you  had  any  other  similar  cases? — Yes;  I 
afterwards,  in  1857,  published  a  series  of  Essays,  and, 
warned  by  past  results,  I  printed  only  500.  That  took 
10^  years  to  sell.  After  that  a  second  series  of  Essays, 
and  a  little  work  on  Education,  which  both  had  kindred 
results,  but  were  not  quite  so  long  in  selling.  I  should 
add  that  all  these  sales  would  have  taken  still  longer  but 
for  the  effect  produced  upon  them  by  books  published 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  21 

at  a  later  period,  wliich  helped  tlie  earlier  ones  to 
sell. 

Have  all  these  subsequent  works  to  which  you  now 
refer  been  published  in  the  same  way? — ^N^o.  Towards 
1860  I  began  to  be  anxious  to  publish  a  "  System  of  Phi- 
losophy/^ which  I  had  been  elaborating  for  a  good  many 
years.  I  found  myself  in  the  position  of  losing  by  all 
my  books ;  and  after  considering  various  plans,  I  decided 
upon  the  plan  of  issuing  to  subscribers  in  quarterly  parts, 
and  to  the  public  in  volumes  when  completed.  Before 
the  initial  volume,  "  First  Principles,"  was  finished,  I 
found  myself  still  losing.  During  issue  of  the  second 
volume,  the  ^'  Principles  of  Biology,''  I  was  still  losing. 
In  the  middle  of  the  third  volume  I  was  still  losing  so 
much  that  I  found  I  was  frittering  away  all  I  possessed. 
I  went  back  upon  my  accounts,  and  found  that  in  the 
course  of  15  years  I  had  lost  nearly  1,200?. — adding  in- 
terest, more  than  1,200L;  and  as  I  was  evidently  going 
on  ruining  myself,  I  issued  to  the  subscribers  a  notice 
of  cessation. 

Was  that  loss  the  difference  between  the  money  that 
you  had  actually  spent  in  publishing  the  books  and  the 
money  you  had  received  in  return? — ]^ot  exactly.  The 
difference  was  between  my  total  expenditure  in  publish- 
ing the  books  and  living  in  the  most  economical  way 
possible,  and  the  total  returns.  That  is  to  say,  cutting 
down  my  expenses  to  the  smallest  amount,  I  lost  1,200?. 
by  the  inadequate  returns,  and  trenched  to  that  extent 
upon  capital. 

But  you  continued  afterwards,  did  you  not,  to  pub- 
lish?— I  continued  afterwards,  simply,  I  may  say,  by 
accident.  On  two  previous  occasions,  in  the  course  of 
these  15  years,  I  had  been  enabled  to  persevere,  spite  of 


22  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

losses,  by  bequests.  On  this  third  occasion,  after  the 
issue  of  the  notice,  property  which  I  inherit  came  to  me 
in  time  to  prevent  the  cessation. 

May  I  ask  liow  long  it  took  before  you  began  to  be 
repaid  for  your  losses? — My  losses  did  not  continue  very 
long  after  that :  the  tide  turned  and  my  books  began  to 
pay.  I  have  calculated  what  length  of  time  it  has  taken 
to  repay  my  losses,  and  find  they  were  repaid  in  1874; 
that  is  to  say,  in  24  years  after  I  began  I  retrieved  my 
position. 

Then  the  Commission  understand  that  your  books  are 
now  remunerative? — They  are  now  remunerative,  and 
for  this  reason: — As  I  have  explained,  I  had  to  publish 
on  commission.  Commission  is  a  system  which,  throw- 
ing all  the  cost  upon  the  author,  is  very  disastrous  for 
him  if  his  books  do  not  pay,  and,  as  you  see  in  this  case, 
has  been  very  disastrous  to  me;  but  when  they  do  pay  it 
is  extremely  advantageous,  inasmuch  as  in  that  case  the 
publisher  who  does  the  business  takes  only  10  per  cent., 
and  the  whole  of  the  difference  between  cost  and  pro- 
ceeds, minus  that  10  per  cent.,  comes  to  the  author.  I 
have  calculated  what  are  my  actual  returns,  on  two  sup- 
positions. I  have  ascertained  the  percentage  I  get  upon 
1,000  copies,  supposing  that  I  set  up  the  type  solely  for 
that  1,000  copies — supposing,  that  is,  that  the  cost  of 
composition  comes  into  the  cost.  In  that  case  I  reap 
305  per  cent.  But  I  reap  much  more.  I  was  sanguine 
enough,  when  I  began  this  series  of  books,  to  stereotype. 
The  result  is  that  now  I  simply  have  to  print  additional 
thousands  as  they  are  demanded.  If  I  suppose  the  cost 
of  composition  and  stereotyping  to  have  been  paid  for 
the  first  edition,  and  only  estimate  the  cost  of  paper  and 
printing  in  the  successive  editions,  then  I  am  reaping 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  23 

41 J  per  cent.  The  actual  percentage,  of  course,  is  one 
which  lies  between  those  two;  but  year  by  year,  with 
each  additional  thousand,  I  approach  more  nearly  to  the 
limit  of  41f  per  cent.  I  should  point  out  that  the  result 
of  this  is  that  I  receive,  as  may  be  supposed,  a  consider- 
able return  upon  the  moderate  numbers  sold. 

And  that  being  so,  can  you  tell  the  Commission  what 
in  your  opinion  would  have  happened  had  there  been  in 
existence  a  system  under  which  three  years,  say,  after 
date  of  publication  anyone  could  have  reprinted  your 
books,  paying  you  a  royalty  of  10  per  cent.? — The  result 
would  have  been  that  my  losses  would  not  have  been 
repaid  now.  After  26  years'  work  I  should  still  have 
been  out  of  pocket;  and  should  be  out  of  pocket  for 
many  years  to  come. 

(Mr.  Trollope.)  Under  such  a  system  do  you  think 
that  you  would  ever  have  recovered  that  money? — I  am 
taking  it  on  the  most  favourable  supposition,  merely 
supposing  that  all  other  things  but  the  percentage  had 
remained  the  same. 

{Chairman.)  Assuming  the  system  of  royalty  to  be 
in  existence,  what  would  be  the  result  on  your  present 
returns,  supposing  losses  to  have  been  repaid? — Between 
two  thirds  and  three  fourths  of  those  returns  would  be 
cut  off.  They  would  be  reduced  to  little  more  than  a 
fourth  of  their  present  amount. 

(Sir  II.  Holland.)  How  do  you  arrive  at  that  result? 
— By  comparing  the  supposed  percentage  with  the  per- 
centage I  actually  receive. 

Assuming  a  royalty  of  10  per  cent,  upon  the  retail 
price  ? — Yes. 

(Chairman.)  Would  it  not  be  probable  that  the  re- 
duction in  price  of  your  books  would  so  increase  the  sales 


24:  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

that  you  would  reap  a  larger  return  than  you  have  sup- 
posed in  the  estimate  that  you  have  now  given  ? — I  think 
not,  or  very  little.  First  of  all  for  the  reason  that  the 
amount  of  reduction  would  not  be  anything  like  so  great 
as  at  first  sight  appears.  If  a  publisher  issued  rival  edi- 
tions of  my  books  without  my  assent,  on  paying  a  roy- 
alty, he  would  only  do  so  to  make  a  profit  beyond  that 
which  mere  commission  would  bring.  My  present  pub- 
lisher is  content  with  10  per  cent,  commission.  A  pub- 
lisher who  competed  as  a  speculation  would  want  to  make 
his  profit  beyond  the  10  per  cent,  commission:  as  I  as- 
certain, probably,  at  least  a  further  10  per  cent.  Then 
there  would  be  my  own  10  per  cent,  royalty.  So  that 
I  find  the  reduction  in  price  under  such  a  royalty  system 
would  only  be  about  15  per  cent.  That  is  to  say,  the 
deduction  would  be  from  20s.  to  17s.  ^ow  I  am  of 
opinion  that  a  reduction  of  the  price  of  one  of  my  books 
by  that  amount  would  have  but  a  small  effect  upon  the 
sales,  the  market  being  so  limited.  Let  me  use  an  illus- 
tration. Take  such  a  commodity  as  cod-liver  oil,  which 
is  a  very  necessary  thing  for  a  certain  limited  class.  Sup- 
pose it  is  contended  that,  out  of  regard  for  those  to  whom 
it  is  so  necessary,  retailers  should  be  compelled  to  take 
a  smaller  profit,  and  you  reduce  the  price  by  15  per  cent. 
The  consumption  would  be  very  little  influenced,  be- 
cause there  would  be  none  except  those  who  had  it  pre- 
scribed for  them  who  would  be  willing  to  take  it,  and 
they  must  have  it.  ^ow  take  one  of  my  books,  say  the 
"  Principles  of  Psychology."  Instead  of  calling  it 
"  caviare  to  the  general,"  let  us  call  it  cod-liver  oil  to  the 
general:  I  think  it  probable  that  if  you  were  to  ask  99 
people  out  of  100  whether  they  would  daily  take  a  spoon- 
ful of  cod-liver  oil  or  read  a  chapter  of  that  book,  they 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  25 

would  prefer  tlie  cod-liver  oil.  And  if  so  it  is  quite 
clear,  I  think,  that  no  lowering  of  the  price  by  3s.  out 
of  20s.  would  in  any  considerable  degree  increase  the 
number  of  persons  who  bought  the  ^'  Principles  of  Psy- 
chology.'' The  class  is  so  limited  and  so  special  that 
there  would  be  no  increase  of  profit  of  a  considerable 
kind  in  consequence  of  an  increased  number  sold. 

(If  7\  Trollope.)  But  are  there  not  many  people  who 
would  have  benefited  by  cod-liver  oil  who  cannot  get  it 
at  present  because  of  the  price? — I  think  in  all  those 
cases  in  which  they  would  be  benefited  they  get  it  by 
hook  or  by  crook  Avhen  it  is  prescribed  for  them. 

And  in  the  same  way  with  your  book^you  think? — 
Yes.  For  instance,  university  men  have  to  read  them, 
and  they  would  buy  them  in  any  case. 

{Chairman.)  What  would  have  happened  to  you 
originally  had  there  been  a  law  giving  a  copyright  only 
of  short  duration,  under  such  an  arrangement  of  per- 
centage as  that  which  you  have  just  named? — I  think 
it  is  tolerably  obvious,  from  what  I  have  already  said, 
that  I  should  not  have  been  wholly  deterred.  I  should 
have  gone  on  losing  for  many  years;  but  I  think  it  is 
also  clear  that  I  should  have  stopped  short  much  sooner 
than  I  did.  Every  author  is  naturally  sanguine  about 
his  books:  he  has  hopes  which  nobody  else  entertains. 
The  result  is  that  he  will  persevere,  in  the  hope  of  at 
some  time  or  other  reaping  some  return,  when  to  other 
persons  there  seems  to  be  no  probability  of  the  kind. 
But  supposing  it  becomes  manifest  to  him  that  the  copy- 
right law  is  such  that  w^hen  his  books  succeed,  if  they 
ever  do  succeed,  he  will  not  get  large  profits,  then  the 
discouragement  will  be  much  greater,  and  he  will  stop 
much  sooner.     If  I,  for  instance,  instead  of  seeing  that 


2G  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGnT. 

under  tlie  system  of  commission  I  should  eventually,  if 
I  succeeded,  repay  myself  and  get  a  good  return,  had 
seen  that  eventually,  if  I  succeeded,  I  should  receive  but 
small  gains,  I  should  have  given  it  up. 

Are  there  other  publications  which  you  have  under- 
taken besides  those  to  which  you  have  already  referred? 
— Yes.  About  10  years  ago  I  commenced  preparing 
works  now  published  under  the  name  of  ^'  Descriptive 
Sociology,"  in  large  folio  parts,  and  containing  tables 
and  classified  extracts  representing  the  civilisations  of 
various  societies.  I  employed  gentlemen  to  make  these 
compilations. 

Do  you  wish  to  state  what  has  been  the  result  of  that 
undertaking  so  far? — Yes.  I  made  up  my  accounts  last 
Christmas.  I  had  then  in  the  course  of  those  10  years 
expended  2,958/.  odd  upon  eight  parts  (five  published 
and  three  in  hand),  and  my  net  return  from  sales  of 
the  five  parts  published  in  England  and  America  was 
608L  10s. 

May  I  ask  whether  you  ever  expect  to  get  back  the 
money  you  have  expended? — I  may  possibly  get  back 
the  printing  expenses  on  the  earliest  part,  and  most  popu- 
lar part,  that  dealing  with  the  English  civilization,  in 
1880,  at  the  present  rate  of  sale.  The  printing  expenses 
of  the  other  parts  I  do  not  expect  to  get  back  for  many 
years  longer.  The  cost  of  compilation  I  expect  to  get 
back  if  I  live  to  be  over  100. 

(Mr.  DaJchj.)  You  spoke  of  the  circulation  in  Eng- 
land and  America.  May  I  ask.  Do  you  send  stereotype 
plates  to  America? — I  did  at  first  send  stereotype  plates 
to  America,  but  the  thing  having  proved  to  be  so  great 
a  loss  I  now  send  a  portion  of  the  printed  edition. 

(Chairman.)  May  I  ask  why  do  you  expect  repay- 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  27 

ment  of  tlie  cost  of  compilation  to  be  so  slow  as  you 
stated  in  your  answer  to  my  last  question? — The  reason 
is  that  I  made  a  promise  to  the  compilers  entailing  that. 
The  compilers  are  university  men,  to  whom  I  could 
afford  to  give  only  such  salaries  as  sufficed  for  their 
necessary  expenses.  To  make  the  thing  better  for  them, 
and  to  be  some  incentive,  I  told  them  that  when  the 
printing  expenses  on  any  one  part  were  repaid,  I  would 
commence  to  divide  with  the  compiler  of  it  the  returns 
of  subsequent  sales:  the  result  being,  that  the  cost  of 
compilation  comes  back  to  me  only  at  half  the  previous 
rate.  I  name  this  because  it  shows  that  in  the  absence 
of  a  long  copyright,  I  could  have  given  no  such  contin- 
gent advantage  to  the  compilers.  I  wish  to  point  out 
another  way  in  which  a  short  copyright  would  have  im- 
peded me.  As  a  further  incentive  to  these  compilers  to 
do  their  work  well,  as  also  make  the  prospect  better  for 
them,  I  gave  them  to  understand  that  the  copyrights  and 
the  stereotype  plates  would  be  theirs  after  my  death.  Of 
course  with  a  short  copyright  I  could  not  have  done  that. 

Then  in  your  opinion  it  is  only  by  a  long  duration  of 
copyright  that  you  can  be  enabled  to  recover  any  con- 
siderable part  of  the  money  that  you  have  sunk  in  these 
publications? — Certainly.  If  it  were  possible  for  anyone 
to  reprint,  such  small  return  as  goes  towards  diminish- 
ing this  immense  loss  would  be  in  part  intercepted. 

But  if  this  work,  wdiich  you  call  ^^  Descriptive  Soci- 
ology," is  so  unremunerative,  how  do  you  imagine  you 
would  be  in  danger  of  having  it  reprinted  under  the 
suggested  system  of  royalty? — It  appears  at  first  sight 
not  a  rational  expectation,  but  it  is  perfectly  possible. 
Each  number  of  the  work  consists  of  a  set  of  tables  and 
a  set  of  classified  extracts.     It  wa^  suggested  by  a  re- 


28  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

viewer  of  the  first  part,  the  English  part,  that  the  tables 
should  be  separately  printed,  mounted  on  boards,  and 
hung  up  in  schools.  The  suggestion  was  a  good  one,  and 
I  have  even  had  thoughts  of  doing  it  myself.  A  pub- 
lisher might  take  up  that  suggestion,  and  might  issue 
those  independently  of  me,  and  diminish  what  small 
sale  I  now  have.  Again,  the  work  is  very  cumbrous  and 
awkward;  that  can  hardly  be  helped;  but  a  publisher 
might  see  that  the  extracts  arranged  in  ordinary  volume 
form  w^ould  be  valuable  by  themselves  apart  from  the 
tables,  and  might  get  a  good  sale  independently;  and 
again  my  small  returns  would  be  cut  into. 

(Sir  H.  Holland.)  That  objection  of  yours  would 
be  partly  met  by  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Macfie,  who 
brought  this  question  of  royalty  before  us,  because  his 
suggestion  is,  that  no  reprint  is  to  differ  from  the  origi- 
nal edition  wdthout  the  author's  consent,  either  in  the 
way  of  abbreviation,  enlargement,  or  alteration  of  the 
text.  Therefore,  under  that  regulation,  if  that  is  carried 
out,  a  publisher  could  not  print  half  of  this  book  with- 
out your  consent? — That  would  so  far,  if  it  can  be  prac- 
tically w^orked  out,  meet  my  objection. 

(Mr.  Trollope.)  But  you  have  stated  that  you 
thought  yourself  of  using  this  form  of  abridgment  to 
wdiich  allusion  is  made? — I  have. 

And  if  this  form  of  abridgment  when  made  by  you 
could  be  republished  again  by  anybody  else,  then  your 
profit  would  be  interfered  w^itli? — Xo  doubt  of  it. 

(Chairman.)  Supposing  the  suggested  system  of 
short  copyright  and  royalty  had  been  in  force,  would 
you  have  undertaken  these  works  to  which  you  have  re- 
ferred?— Certainly  not.  The  enterprise  w\is  an  unprom- 
ising one,  pecuniarily  considered,  and  it  would  have  been 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  29 

almost  an  insane  one,  I  think,  had  there  not  been  the 
possibility  of  eventually  getting  back  some  returns  from 
sales  that  were  necessarily  very  slow.  Moreover,  the 
hopes  under  which  the  compilers  have  worked  I  could 
never  have  given  to  them. 

Then  are  we  to  gather  from  your  evidence  that  the 
system  of  short  copyright  and  royalty  would  be  injurious 
to  the  books  of  the  graver  class  which  do  not  appeal  to 
the  popular  tastes? — I  think  so;  it  would  be  especially 
injurious  to  that  particular  class  which  of  all  others 
needs  encouragement. 

(Sir  H.  Holland.)  As  requiring  most  thought  and 
brain  work  on  the  part  of  the  author? — Yes,  and  being 
least  remfinerative. 

{Chairman.)  I  understand  you  to  say  that  in  all 
these  cases  you  have  not  parted  with  the  copyright  your- 
self?— Xo,  I  have  not. 

l^ow  assuming  that  the  authors  of  these  graver  books 
sold  their  copyrights,  do  you  think  this  royalty  system 
would  still  act  prejudicially  upon  them? — I  think  very 
decidedly.  I  have  understood  that  it  is  contended  that 
authors  who  sell  their  copyrights  would  not  be  affected 
by  this  aiTangement.  One  of  the  answers  I  heard  given 
here  to-day  sufficed  to  show  that  that  is  not  true;  inas- 
much as  a  publisher  who  had  to  meet  these  risks  would 
not  give  as  much  for  copyright  as  he  would  otherwise 
give.  His  argument  would  be  unanswerable.  He  would 
say,  "  Your  book  is  a  success,  or  not  a  success;  if  not  a 
success,  I  lose  what  I  give  you  for  copyright;  if  a  suc- 
.cess,  I  shall  have  it  reprinted  upon  me,  and  again  I  shall 
lose  what  I  give  you  for  copyright.  I  must,  therefore, 
reduce  the.  amount  which  I  give  for  the  copyright.'^ 
Moreover,  I  believe  that  the  reduction  in  the  value  of 


30  VIEWS  CONCERNING   COPYRIGHT. 

copyright  would  be  much  greater  than  the  facts  justified. 
In  the  first  pLace,  the  publisher  himself  would  look  to 
the  possibility  of  reprinting  with  a  fear  beyond  that 
which  actual  experience  warranted.  Frequently  a  sug- 
gested small  danger  acts  upon  the  mind  in  a  degree  out 
of  all  proportion  to  its  amount.  Take  such  a  case  as  the 
present  small-pox  epidemic,  in  which  you  find  that  one 
person  in  30,000  dies  in  a  week;  in  which,  therefore, 
the  risk  of  death  is  extremely  small.  Look  at  this  actual 
risk  of  death  and  compare  it  with  the  alarms  that  you 
find  prevailing  amongst  people.  It  is  clear  that  the  fear 
of  an  imagined  consequence  of  that  kind,  is  often  much 
in  excess  of  the  actual  danger.  Similarly,  I  conceive  that 
the  publisher  himself  would  unconsciously  over-estimate 
the  danger  of  reprints.  But  beyond  that  he  would  ex- 
aggerate his  over-estimate  as  an  excuse  for  beating  down 
copyright.  He  would  say  to  the  author,  "  You  see  this 
danger;  I  cannot  face  so  great  a  risk  without  guarding 
myself;  and  you  must  submit  to  a  large  reduction." 

The  evidence  as  corithiiied  on  March  20  was  as  follows: 

(Chairman.)  I  will  ask  you  if  you  have  any  ex- 
planations you  wish  to  offer  on  any  point  connected  with 
the  evidence  which  you  gave  on  the  last  occasion? — Yes; 
I  have  to  rectify  some  misapprehensions.  From  the  re- 
statement made  by  Mr.  Farrer,  it  w^ould  appear  that  in 
discussing  the  question  of  profits  from  re-publication  of 
one  of  my  works,  I  said  I  had  ''  found  that  no  other  pub- 
lisher would  undertake  the  work  without  an  additional 
profit  of  10  per  cent.,"  which  implies  that  I  had  endeav- 
oured to  obtain  another  publisher.  ^ly  meaning  was 
that  I  ascertained  that  any  other  publisher  who  thought 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  31 

of  issuing  a  rival  edition,  would  expect  to  make  a  profit 
of  10  per  cent,  beyond  the  10  per  cent,  commission  for 
doing  the  business.  Further,  I  have  to  remark  that  the 
case  I  took  as  illustrating  the  improbability  that  I  should 
obtain  any  considerable  compensation  from  increased 
sales  under  the  royalty  system,  was  the  case  of  one  of 
my  works  only,  the  "  Principles  of  Psychology,'^  and  in 
respect  of  this,  I  may  admit  that  there  would  be  little 
danger  of  a  rival  edition.  But  it  is  not  so  with  others  of 
my  works — with  the  work  on  "  Education,''  now  in  its 
fourth  thousand;  with  ^^  First  Principles,"  now  in  its 
fourth  thousand,  and  especially  with  the  just-issued  first 
volume  of  the  "  Principles  of  Sociology."  These  are  now 
sufficiently  in  demand,  and,  especially  the  last,  suffi- 
ciently popular  in  manner  and  matter,  to  make  rival 
editions  quite  probable. 

^ow,  with  respect  to  the  stereotype  plates,  would 
they  not  enable  you  to  exclude  the  rival  edition  of  which 
you  speak? — I  think  not.  In  the  first  place,  the  assump- 
tion that  other  publishers  w^ould  be  deterred  from  issuing 
rival  editions  by  my  stereotype  plates,  implies  that  other 
publishers  would  know  I  had  them.  I  do  not  see  how 
other  publishers  are  to  know  it,  until  after  I  had  myself 
printed  new  editions — even  English  publishers,  and  it 
is  out  of  the  question  that  colonial  publishers  should 
know  it.  Hence,  therefore,  the  fact  of  my  having  stereo- 
type plates  would  not  prevent  such  rival  editions.  Con- 
sequently these  rival  editions,  making  their  appearance 
unawares,  would  compete  with  my  existing  stock,  printed 
in  a  comparatively  expensive  style,  and  would  oblige  me 
either  to  sacrifice  that  stock,  or  to  lower  the  price  to  one 
far  less  remunerative.  Then,  subsequently,  there  would 
not  be  the  supposed  ability  to  compete  so  advantageously 


32  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

with  editions  published  by  others.  An  edition  to  be  sold 
at  a  cheap  rate  must  not  be  in  large  type,  well  spaced, 
and  Avith  ample  margins,  but  must  be  in  small  type,  and 
much  matter  put  into  the  page.  Hence  the  existing 
stereotype  plates,  adapted  for  printing  only  books  in  a 
superior  style,  could  not  be  used  to  print  cheap  books: 
the  quantity  of  paper  and  the  cost  of  printing  would  be 
much  larger  items  than  to  one  wdio  arranged  the  matter 
fitly  for  a  cheap  edition. 

Then  are  we  to  gather  that  you  do  not  think  that 
from  any  such  cheap  edition  you  would  derive  a  profit 
from  the  royalty  compensating  you  for  your  loss? — 
Nothing  like  compensating.  Although  the  sales  of  these 
more  readable  books  I  have  instanced  might  be  consider- 
ably increased,  the  increase  could  not  be  anything  like 
as  great  as  would  be  required  to  produce  the  return  I  now 
have.  Even  supposing  the  price  of  the  rival  edition  were 
the  same,  which  of  course  it  would  not  be,  the  10  per 
cent,  royalty  w^ould  bring  in  the  same  amount,  only  sup- 
posing four  times  the  number  were  sold  that  I  sell  now ; 
and  as,  by  the  hypothesis,  the  price  of  the  volume,  to  get 
any  such  larger  sale,  must  be  much  lower,  the  royalty 
would  bring  in  so  much  the  less.  If,  say,  '^  First  Prin- 
ciples "  were  issued  at  half  the  present  price,  8,000  would 
have  to  be  sold  instead  of  1,000  to  bring  in  by  royalty 
the  present  returns.  Such  an  increase  of  the  sale  would 
be  out  of  the  question ;  even  one  half  of  it  w^ould  be  im- 
probable, so  that  certainly  one  half  of  my  returns  would 
be  lost. 

Have  you  any  other  personal  experience  that  you 
wish  to  bring  before  the  Commission  to  show  that  such 
a  modification  of  the  copyright  law  as  you  have  been  dis- 
cussing would  be  disadvantageous  to  literature  of  th© 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  33 

graver  kind? — I  tliink  I  have.  ^^  First  Principles  "  was 
published  in  1862,  and  in  the  course  of  some  years  the 
doctrine  it  contains  underwent,  in  my  mind,  a  consider- 
able further  development,  and  I  found  it  needful  to  re- 
organise the  book.  I  spent  five  months  in  doing  this; 
cancelled  a  large  number  of  stereotype  plates;  and  was 
thus  at  considerable  cost  of  time  and  money.  As  I  have 
already  pointed  out,  the  work  being  now  in  its  fourth 
thousand,  has  had  a  degree  of  success  such  that  there 
might,  under  the  proposed  arrangement,  very  possibly 
have  been  a  rival  edition  at  the  time  I  proposed  to  make 
these  alterations.  Had  there  been  such  a  rival  edition, 
this  cost  of  re-organisation  to  me  would  have  been  more 
serious  even  than  it  was;  since  the  difference  between 
the  original  and  the  improved  edition,  adequately  known 
only  to  those  who  bought  the  improved  edition,  would 
not  have  prevented  the  sale  of  the  rival  edition ;  and  the 
sale  of  the  improved  edition  would  have  greatly  dimin- 
ished. In  any  case  the  errors  of  the  first  edition  would 
have  been  more  widely  spread;  and  in  the  absence  of 
ability  to  bear  considerable  loss,  it  would  have  been 
needful  to  let  them  go  and  become  permanent.  A  kin- 
dred tendency  of  the  arrest  of  improvements  would 
occur  with  all  scientific  books  and  all  books  of  the  higher 
kind,  treating  of  subjects  in  a  state  of  growth. 

With  the  object  of  rendering  useful  books  as  accessi- 
ble as  possible  to  the  public,  do  you  think  that  those 
engaged  in  their  production  and  distribution  should  be 
restrained  from  making  what  might  be  called  undue 
profits? — In  answer  to  the  first  part  of  the  question  I 
hope  to  say  something  presently,  showing  that  the  ad- 
vantage of  increased  accessibility  of  books  is  by  no  means 
unqualified;  since  greater  accessibility  may  be  a  mis- 


34  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

chief,  if  it  tells  in  favour  of  worthless  books  instead  of 
valuable  books.  But  passing  this  for  the  present,  I 
would  comment  on  the  proposition,  which  I  perceive  has 
been  made  before  the  Commission,  that  it  is  desirable 
to  secure  for  books  ^'  the  cheapest  possible  price  consist- 
ent with  a  fair  profit  to  those  concerned."  I  here  ven- 
ture to  draw  a  parallel.  What  is  now  thought  so  desir- 
able respecting  books,  was  in  old  times  thought  desirable 
respecting  food — '^  the  cheapest  possible  price  consistent 
with  a  fair  profit  to  those  concerned."  And  to  secure 
this  all-essential  advantage,  more  peremptory,  indeed, 
than  that  now  to  be  secured,  there  were  regulations  of 
various  kinds  extending  through  centuries,  alike  in  Eng- 
land and  on  the  Continent, — forbidding  of  exj)orts,  re- 
moving of  middlemen,  punishing  of  forestallers.  But  I 
need  hardly  recall  the  fact  that  all  these  attempts  to 
interfere  with  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  failed,  and 
after  doing  much  mischief  were  abolished.  The  at- 
tempt to  secure  cheap  books  by  legislative  arrangements, 
seems  to  me  nothing  less  than  a  return  to  the  long-aban- 
doned system  of  trade  regulations;  and  is  allied  to  the 
fixing  of  rates  of  interest,  of  prices,  of  wages.  In  the 
past  it  was  the  greediness  of  money-lenders  that  had  to 
be  checked,  or,  as  in  France  for  many  generations,  the 
greediness  of  hotel-keepers ;  and  now  it  appears  to  be  the 
greediness  of  book-producers  that  needs  checking.  I 
do  not  see,  however,  any  reason  for  believing  that  regu- 
lations made  by  law  to  secure  cheap  bread  for  the  body 
having  failed,  there  is  likelihood  of  success  for  regula- 
tions aiming  to  secure  cheap  bread  for  the  mind. 

Then  do  we  understand  you  to  mean  that  no  analogy 
furnished  by  past  experience  in  conniuM'cial  affairs  can 
be  held  to  imply  that  the  proposed  royalty  plan  would 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  35 

succeed? — I  think  that  all  the  facts  are  against  it.  I 
find  it  stated  in  the  evidence  lately  given  that  there  has 
not  been  raised  ''  an  insuperable  objection  in  point  of 
principle  "  to  the  plan  of  a  royalty.  If  no  such  objection 
in  point  of  principle  has  been  raised,  I  think  one  may  be 
raised;  the  objection,  namely,  that  it  is  distinctly  op-' 
posed  to  the  principles  of  free  trade.  One  of  the  aims  of 
the  plan,  as  expressed  in  the  words  of  the  same  witness, 
is  the  "  preservation  of  a  fair  profit  to  the  author."  JSTow, 
on  the  face  of  it,  it  seems  to  me  that  any  proposal  to  se- 
cure fair  profits  by  legislation,  is  entirely  at  variance  with 
free  trade  principles,  which  imply  that  profits  are  to  be 
determined  by  the  ordinary  course  of  business.  But 
further,  I  would  point  out  that  if  it  is  competent  for  the 
legislature  to  say  what  is  a  "  fair  profit  to  the  author,''  I 
do  not  see  why  it  is  not  competent  for  the  legislature  to 
say  w^hat  is  a  fair  profit  to  the  publisher;  indeed,  I  may 
say  that  it  is  not  only  as  competent  but  much  more  com- 
petent. I  take  it  to  be  impossible  for  the  legislature  to 
^  with  anything  like  equity  the  profit  of  authors,  if 
profit  is  to  bear  any  relation  to  either  skill  or  labour,  as 
it  should  do ;  inasmuch  as  one  author  puts  into  a  page  of 
his  book  ten  times  as  much  skill  as  another,  and,  in 
other  cases,  ten  times  as  much  labour  as  another.  Hence 
therefore,  if  they  are  to  be  paid  at  the  same  percentage 
on  the  price,  there  is  no  proportion  in  that  case  secured 
between  the  value  of  the  labour  and  what  they  receive. 
Similarly,  if  we  consider  the  number  sold,  the  royalty 
which  might  afford  ample  return  to  an  author  who  sold 
a  popular  book  in  large  numbers  would  afford  little  re- 
turn to  an  author  who  produced  a  grave  book  selling  in 
small  numbers.  Obviously  then  it  is  extremely  difficult, 
and  in  fact  impossible,  for  the  legislature  to  fix  an  equita- 


36  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

blc  royalty;  but  it  is  by  no  means  so  difficult  for  tlie 
legislature  to  fix  an  equitable  rate  of  profit  for  the  pub- 
lisher. The  function  of  the  publisher  is  a  comparatively 
mechanical  and  uniform  function:  the  same  practically 
for  all  books,  the  same  for  all  publishers,  and  hence  is  a 
thing  very  much  easier  to  estimate  in  respect  of  the  pro- 
portion; and  in  fact  we  have  the  evidence  that  it  can  be 
fixed  with  something  like  fairness,  inasmuch  as  publish- 
ers themselves  voluntarily  accept  a  10  per  cent,  commis- 
sion. Hence,  I  say,  not  only  does  the  carrying  out  of  the 
principle  imply  that  if,  in  pursuit  of  alleged  public  ad- 
vantage, the  profit  of  the  author  should  be  fixed,  then 
also  should  the  profit  of  the  publisher  be  fixed,  but  that 
it  is  much  easier  to  do  the  last  than  to  do  the  first.  If 
so,  then,  it  is  competent  for  the  legislature  to  go  a  step 
further.  If  there  is  to  be  a  Government  officer  to  issue 
royalty  stamps,  there  may  as  well  be  a  Government 
officer  to  whom  a  publisher  shall  take  his  printer's  bills, 
and  who  adding  to  these  the  trade  allowances,  authors' 
10  per  cent,  royalty,  and  publishers'  10  per  cent,  com- 
mission, shall  tell  him  at  wdiat  price  he  may  advertise 
the  book.  This  is  the  logical  issue  of  the  plan;  and  this 
is  not  free  trade. 

(Sir  H.  Holland.)  You  will  hardly  contend  that  the 
system  of  royalty  is  less  in  accord  with  free  trade  than 
the  existing  system  of  monopoly;  you  will  not  carry  it 
so  far  as  that,  will  you  ? — I  do  not  admit  the  propriety  of 
the  word  ^^  monopoly." 

Without  using  the  word  "  monopoly,"  let  me  say, 
than  the  present  system  of  copyright  for  a  certain  term 
of  years? — I  regard  that  as  just  as  much  coming  within 
the  limits  of  free  trade  as  I  hold  the  possession,  or  mo- 
nopoly, of  any  other  kind  of  property  to  be  consistent 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  37 

with  free  trade.  There  are  people  who  call  the  capitalist 
a  monopolist:  many  working  men  do  that.  I  do  not 
think  he  is  rightly  so  called ;  and  similarly  if  it  is  alleged 
that  the  author^s  claim  to  the  product  of  his  brain-work 
is  a  monopoly,  I  do  not  admit  it  to  be  a  monopoly.  I  re- 
gard both  the  term  "  free  trade ''  as  applied  to  the  unre- 
strained issue  of  rival  editions,  and  the  term  "  monopo- 
ly '^  as  applied  to  the  author's  copyright,  as  question- 
begging  terms. 

Without  saying  what  opinion  I  hold  upon  the  point, 
and  avoiding  the  use  of  the  words  "  monopoly  ''  and 
^'  free  trade,"  I  wish  to  know  whether  you  think  it  most 
consistent  with  the  doctrines  of  political  economy,  that 
every  person  should  be  able,  upon  payment,  to  publish  a 
particular  book,  or  that  only  one  person  should  have  it  in 
his  power  to  do  so  for  a  certain  time? — Every  person  is 
allowed  and  perfectly  free  to  publish  a  book  on  any  sub- 
ject. An  author  has  no  monopoly  of  a  subject.  An  au- 
thor writes  a  novel ;  another  man  may  write  a  novel.  An 
author  writes  a  book  on  geology;  another  man  may  write 
a  book  on  geology.  He  no  more  monopolises  the  subject 
than  any  trader  who  buys  raw  material  and  shapes  it  into 
an  article  of  trade  is  a  monopolist.  There  is  more  raw 
material  which  another  man  may  buy.  The  only  thing 
that  the  author  claims  is,  that  part  of  the  value  of  the 
article  which  has  been  given  to  it  by  his  shaping  process ; 
which  is  w^hat  any  artizan  does.  The  way  in  which  this 
position  of  authors  is  spoken  as  "  monopoly  "  reminds 
me  of  the  doctrine  of  Proudhon — "  Property  is  robbery. '^ 
You  may  give  a  stigma  to  a  thing  by  attaching  to  it  a 
name  not  in  the  least  appropriate. 

(Mr.  TroUope.)  I  understand  your  objection  to  a 
system  of  royalties  to  be  this,  that  no  possible  quota  that 


38  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

could  be  fixed  would  be  a  just  payment  for  all  works? — 
That  is  one  objection.  There  is  no  possibility  of  fixing 
one  that  would  apply  to  all  works,  inasmuch  as  the  thing 
paid  for  is  an  extremely  variable  thing,  more  variable 
than  in  almost  any  other  occupation. 

I  i^ut  that  question  to  another  witness  before  you,  but 
I  am  afraid  failed  to  make  him  understand  me.  I  am 
therefore  glad  to  have  the  answer  from  you  in  order  that 
we  may  show  (I  think  you  wdll  agree  with  me)  that  no 
special  royalty  specified  by  Act  of  Parliament  could  be 
just  to  poetry,  and  to  the  drama,  and  to  fiction,  and  to 
science,  and  to  history  at  the  same  time? — Quite  so.  I 
think  it  obvious,  when  it  is  put  clearly,  that  it  cannot 
be;    and  that  is  an  all-essential  objection. 

(Sir  II.  Holland.)  Xor  would  it  in  your  opinion  be 
desirable  that  the  question  of  determining  what  amount 
of  royalty  is  proper  in  each  case  should  be  vested  in  some 
registrar  or  some  single  person? — It  would  make  the 
matter  still  w^orse.  It  w^ould  be  bad  to  vest  it  anywhere, 
but  especially  bad  to  vest  it  in  any  single  official. 

{Cliairman.)  Are  we  to  assume  that  you  think  the 
plan  of  a  royalty  to  be  at  variance  with  the  established 
principles  of  the  science  of  political  economy? — I  think 
quite  at  variance  with  the  principles  of  political  economy. 
The  proposal  is  to  benefit  the  consumer  of  books  by  cheap- 
ening books.  A  measure  effecting  this  will  either  change, 
or  wall  not  change,  the  returns  of  these  engaged  in  pro- 
ducing books.  That  it  w^ill  change  them  may  be  taken 
as  certain:  the  chances  are  infinity  to  one  against  such 
a  system  leaving  the  returns  as  they  are.  What  will  the 
change  be?  Either  to  increase  or  decrease  those  returns. 
Is  it  said  that  by  this  regulation  the  returns  to  producers 
of  books  will  be  increased,  and  that  they  only  require 


VIEWS  CONCEHXING  COPYRIGHT.  gy 

forcing  to  issue  clieaper  editions,  to  reap  greater  profit 
themselves,  at  the  same  time  that  they  benefit  the  public  ? 
Then  the  proposition  is  that  book-producers  and  distri- 
butors do  not  understand  their  business,  but  require  to 
be  instructed  by  the  State  how  to  carry  it  on  more  ad- 
vantageously. Few  will,  I  think,  deliberately  assert  this. 
There  is,  then,  the  other  alternative:  the  returns  will  be 
decreased.  At  whose  expense  decreased, — printers',  au- 
thors', or  publisher's?  Xot  at  the  expense  of  the  print- 
ers: competition  keeps  dow^n  their  profits  at  the  normal 
level.  Scarcely  at  the  cost  of  the  authors;  for  abundant 
evidence  has  shown  that,  on  the  average,  authors'  profits 
are  extremely  small.  AVere  there  no  other  motive  for 
authorship  than  money-getting,  there  would  be  very  few 
authors.  Clearly,  then,  the  reduction  of  returns  is  to  be 
at  the  cost  of  the  publisher.  The  assumption  is  that  for 
some  reason  or  other,  the  publishing  business,  unlike  any 
other  business,  needs  its  returns  regulated  by  law. 
Thinking,  apparently,  of  prosperous  publishers  only,  and 
forgetting  that  there  are  many  who  make  but  moderate 
incomes  and  very  many  who  fail,  and  thinking  only  of 
books  w^hich  sell  largely,  while  forgetting  that  very  many 
books  bring  no  profits  and  still  more  entail  loss,  it  is 
assumed  that  the  publishing  business,  notwithtanding 
the  competition  among  publishers,  is  abnormally  profit- 
able. This  seems  to  me  a  remarkable  assumption.  Em- 
barking in  the  business  of  publishing,  like  embarking 
in  any  other  business,  is  determined  partly  by  the  relative 
attractiveness  of  the  occupation  and  partly  by  the  prom- 
ised returns  of  capital.  There  is  no  reason  to  think  that 
the  occupation  of  publishing  differs  widely  from  other 
occupations  in  attractiveness;  and  hence  w^e  must  say 
that,  competing  for  recruits  with  many  other  businesses, 


40  VIEWS  CONCERXING  COPYRIGHT. 

it  must  on  the  average,  offer  a  like  return  on  capital. 
Were  it  found  that  the  average  return  on  capital  in  pub- 
lishing was  larger  than  in  other  businesses,  there  would 
immediately  be  more  publishers;  and  competition  would 
lower  the  returns.  If,  then,  we  must  infer  that,  taking 
the  returns  of  all  publishers  on  the  average  of  books,  their 
profits  are  not  higher  than  those  of  other  businesses; 
what  would  be  the  effect  of  such  a  measure  as  that  pro- 
posed, if,  as  anticipated,  it  lowered  publishers'  returns? 
Simply  that  it  would  drive  away  a  certain  amount  of 
capital  out  of  the  publishing  business  into  more  remuner- 
ative businesses.  Competition  among  publishers  would 
decrease;  and  as  competition  decreased,  their  profits 
would  begin  to  rise  again,  until,  by  and  bye,  after  a  suf- 
ficient amount  of  perturbation  and  bankruptcy,  there 
would  be  a  return  to  the  ordinary  rates  of  profit  on  capi- 
tal, and  the  proposed  benefit  to  the  public  at  the  cost  of 
publishers  would  disappear. 

Then,  with  a  view  to  the  permanent  cheapening  of 
books,  we  may  gather  that  your  opinion  is  that  it  would 
not  be  effected  in  the  way  suggested  ? — I  think  not.  The 
natural  cheapening  of  books  is  beneficial;  the  artificial 
cheapening  mischievous. 

May  I  ask  you  to  explain  what  you  mean  by  contrast- 
ing the  natural  and  the  artificial  cheapening  of  botoks? — 
By  natural  cheapening  I  mean  that  lowering  of  prices 
which  follows  increase  of  demand.  I  see  no  reason,  a 
priori,  for  supposing  that  publishers  differ  from  other 
traders  in  their  readiness  to  cater  for  a  larger  public,  if 
they  see  their  way  to  making  a  profit  by  so  doing;  and, 
a  posterioriy  there  is  abundant  proof  that  they  do  this. 
The  various  series  of  cheap  books,  bringing  down  even 
the  whole  of  Shakespeare  to  a  shilling,  and  all  Byron  to 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  41 

a  shilling,  and  each  of  Scott's  novels  to  sixpence,  suffi- 
ciently prove  that  prices  will  be  lowered  in  the  publish- 
ing trade  if  the  market  is  adequately  extensive,  just  as 
in  any  other  trade.  If  it  be  said  that  in  this  case  authors 
have  not  to  be  paid,  I  would  simply  refer  to  such  a  series 
as  that  of  Mr.  Bohn,  who,  notwithstanding  the  payments 
to  translators  and  others,  published  numerous  valuable 
books  at  low  rates.  Moreover,  we  have  conclusive  evi- 
dence that  with  the  works  of  still-living  authors  the  same 
thing  happens,  when  the  market  becomes  sufficiently 
large  to  make  a  low  price  profitable.  Witness  not  only 
the  cheap  editions  of  many  modern  novels,  but  the  cheap 
editions  even  of  Mr.  Carlyle's  Avorks,  and  Mr.  MilFs 
works.  Deductively  and  inductively,  then,  w^e  may  say 
that  there  is  a  natural  cheapening  of  books,  going  as  far 
as  trade  profits  allow;  as  there  is  a  natural  cheapening  of 
other  things.  Conversely,  I  mean  by  artificial  cheapen- 
ing, that  kind  which  is  anticipated  from  the  measure  pro- 
posed; for  it  is  expected  by  means  of  this  measure  to 
make  publishers  issue  books  at  lower  rates  than  they  other- 
wise do.  And  this  is  essentially  a  proposal  to  make  them 
publish  at  a  relative  loss.  If,  as  already  argued,  the 
average  rates  of  publishers'  profits  are  not  above  those  of 
ordinary  business-profits,  these  measures  for  lowering 
their  prices,  must  either  drive  them  out  of  the  business 
or  be  inoperative.  To  put  the  point  briefly — if  there  is 
an  obvious  profit  to  be  obtained,  publishers  will  lower 
their  prices  of  their  own  accord;  and  the  proposed  com- 
petitive system  will  not  make  profits  obvious  where  they 
v/ere  not  so  before. 

But  if  there  w^as  free  competition  on  the  payment  of 
the  author's  royalty,  might  it  not  be  that  another  publish- 
er would  be  led  to  issue  a  cheap  edition  when  the  original 
4 


42  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

publisher  would  not? — I  see  no  reason  to  think  this. 
The  assumption  appears  to  be  that  everybod}^  but  author 
and  original  publisher  can  see  the  advantage  of  a  cheap 
edition,  but  that  author  and  original  i)ublislier  are  blind. 
Contrariwise,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  original  producers 
of  the  book  are  those  best  enabled  to  say  when  a  cheap 
edition  will  answer.  The  original  producers  of  the  book 
know  all  the  data — number  sold,  cost,  return,  and  so 
forth ;  and  can  judge  of  the  probable  demand.  Another 
publisher  is  in  the  dark,  and  it  does  not  seem  a  reason- 
able proposition  that  the  publisher  who  is  in  the  dark  can 
best  estimate  the  remunerativeness  of  a  cheap  edition. 
If  it  is  hoped  that,  being  in  the  dark,  he  may  rashly 
venture,  and  the  public  may  so  profit,  then  the  hope  is 
that  he  may  be  tempted  into  a  losing  business.  But  the 
public  cannot  profit  in  the  long  run  by  losing  busi- 
nesses. 

(Sir  II.  IloUand.)  Take  the  "  Life  of  Lord  Macau- 
lay  "  ;  you  know  that  Tauchnitz  has  published  a  cheap 
edition  in  four  volumes, — a  very  neat  edition,  good  paper 
and  good  print.  Is  it  not  possible  that  if  this  system  of 
royalty  is  introduced,  wdthout  considering  wdiether  the 
author  would  lose  by  it,  a  cheap  edition  like  that  would 
be  put  upon  the  market  at  once,  and  would  pay  the  pub- 
lisher?— It  is  possible  that  it  would  be  done  earlier  than 
it  is  now  done.  I  take  it  that  the  normal  course  of  things 
is  that,  first  of  all,  the  dear  edition  should  be  published 
and  have  its  sale,  and  supply  its  market,  and  that  then, 
when  that  sale  lias  flagged,  there  should  come  the  aim  to 
supply  a  wider  market  by  publishing  a  cheap  edition. 

You  are  aware  that  one  of  the  advantages  which  the 
advocates  of  this  royalty  sj^stem  most  strongly  dwell 
upon,  is  that  under  the  present  system  the  great  mass  of 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  43 

the  reading  public  are  not  able  to  purcliase  the  books; 
those  who  have  the  advantage  of  circulating  libraries  can 
get  them  and  read  them,  but  poorer  persons  can  neither 
purchase  nor  read  them,  whereas  under  the  other  system 
an  edition  like  Tauchnitz  would  be  at  once  put  out,  and 
it  is  contended  that  this,  though  it  might  be  a  loss  to  the 
author,  would  be  a  benefit  to  the  public? — Then  I  take 
it  that  the  proposal  really  amounts  to  this,  that  whereas, 
at  present,  the  poorer  class  of  readers  are  inconvenienced 
by  having  to  wait  for  a  cheap  edition  a  certain  number 
of  years,  they  shall,  by  this  arrangement,  be  advantaged 
by  having  a  cheap  edition  forthwith;  which  is  to  say 
that  people  with  smaller  amounts  of  money  shall  have 
no  disadvantages  from  their  smaller  amounts  of  money. 
It  is  communistic  practically:  .it  is  simply  equalising  the 
advantages  of  wealth  end  poverty. 

{Chairman.)  Then  we  may  assume  that  in  your 
opinion  the  royalty  system  would  not  operate  in  cheapen- 
ing books  in  the  long  run? — I  think  that  in  the  first 
place,  supposing  it  should  act  in  the  manner  intended,  by 
producing  rival  editions,  it  would  act  in  cheapening  just 
that  class  of  books  wdiicli  it  would  be  a  mischief  to 
cheapen.  I  have  already  intimated  in  a  previous  reply, 
that  the  alleged  advantage  of  cheapening  books  is  to  be 
taken  with  a  qualification;  inasmuch  as  there  is  a  cheap- 
ening which  is  beneficial  and  a  cheapening  which  is  in- 
jurious. And  I  have  got,  I  think,  pretty  clear  evidence 
that  the  class  of  books  cheapened  would  be  a  class  which 
it  is  undesirable  to  cheapen.  Being  one  of  the  committee 
of  the  London  Library,  I  have  some  facilities  for  obtain- 
ing evidence  with  regard  to  the  circulation  of  various 
classes  of  books;  and  I  have  got  the  librarian  to  draw  me 
up  what  he  entitles — ^'  Kecorded  circulation  of  the  fol- 


44  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

lowing  books  during  tlie  three  years  following  tlieir  intro- 
duction into  tlie  London  Library.''  Here,  in  the  first 
place,  is  a  book  of  science — LyelFs  "  Principles  of  Ge- 
ology "  ;  that  went  out  28  times.  Here,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  a  sensational  book, — Dixon's  ^'  Spiritual 
Wives  "  ;  that  went  out  120  times.  Here,  again,  is  a 
highly  instructive  book, — Maine's  "Ancient  Law"  ;  that 
went  out  29  times.  Here  is  a  book  of  tittle-tattle  about 
old  times, — "  Her  Majesty's  Tower  "  ;  that  went  out 
127  times.  Here,  again,  is  another  book  of  valuable  in- 
quiry,— Lecky's  "  European  Morals  "  ;  that  went  out  23 
times.  Here  is  a  book  of  gossip, — "  Crabb  Robinson's 
Diary  "  ;  that  went  out  154  times.  Lecky's  '^  History 
of  Eationalism  "  went  out  13  times;  Greville's  "Me- 
moirs "  went  out  116  times.  Herschel's  "  Astronomy  " 
went  out  25  times;  Jesse's  "  George  the  Third  "  went 
out  67  times.  I  have  added  together  these  contrasted  re- 
sults, and  the  grave  instructive  books,  taken  altogether, 
number  118  issues,  while  the  sensational  and  gossiping 
books  number  584  issues;  that  is  to  say,  more  than  five 
times  the  number  of  issues.  ISTow,  the  London  Library  is, 
among  circulating  libraries  at  least,  the  one  which  is  of 
all  the  highest  in  respect  of  the  quality  of  its  readers:  it 
is  the  library  of  the  elite  of  London.  If,  then,  we  see  that 
there  go  out  to  these  readers  five  times  as  many  of  these 
books  which  minister  to  the  craving  for  excitement,  and 
are  really  dissipating  books,  as  there  go  out  the  grave, 
serious  instructive  books,  we  may  judge  what  will  be  the 
proportion  of  demand  for  such  books  in  the  public  at 
large.  Now  let  us  ask  what  a  publisher  will  do  in  face  of 
these  facts.  He  knows  what  these  demands  are;  and  he 
has  to  choose  what  books  he  will  reprint.  A  publisher 
who  has  laid  himself  out  for  rival  editions  is  compara- 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  45 

tively  unlikely  to  choose  one  of  tlie  really  valuable  books, 
which  needs  more  circulating.  I  will  not  say  he  will  never 
do  it.  He  will  do  it  sometimes;  but  he  will  be  far  more 
likely  to  choose  one  of  these  books  appealing  to  a  numer- 
ous public,  and  of  which  a  cheap  edition  will  sell  largely. 
Hence,  therefore,  the  obvious  result  will  be  to  multiply 
these  books  of  an  inferior  kind.  Xow  already  that  class 
of  books  is  detrimentally  large:  already  books  that  are 
bad  in  art,  bad  in  tone,  bad  in  substance,  come  pouring 
out  from  the  press  in  such  torrents  as  to  very  much  sub- 
merge the  really  instructive  books;  and  this  measure 
would  have  the  effect  of  making  that  torrent  still  greater, 
and  of  still  more  submerging  the  really  instructive  books. 
Therefore,  I  hold  that  if  the  stimulus  to  rival  editions 
acted  as  it  is  expected  to  act,  the  result  would  be  to  mul- 
tiply the  mischievous  books. 

(Mr,  Trollope.)  Do  you  not  think  that  in  making  the 
parallel  that  you  have  there  made  you  have  failed  to 
consider  the  mental  capacities  of  readers? — I  was  about, 
in  answering  the  next  question,  to  deal  indirectly  with 
that;  pointing  out  that  while  there  is  a  certain  deter- 
mining of  the  quality  of  reading  by  the  mental  capacity, 
there  is  a  certain  range  within  which  you  may  minister 
more  or  you  may  minister  less.  There  are  people  who, 
if  they  are  tempted,  will  spend  all  their  time  on  light 
literature,  and  if  they  are  less  tempted  will  devote  some 
of  their  time  to  grave  literature.  Already  the  graver 
books,  the  instructive  books,  those  that  really  need  cir- 
culating, are  impeded  very  much  by  this  enormous  soli- 
citation from  the  multitude  of  books  of  a  gossipy,  sen- 
sational kind.  People  have  but  a  certain  amount  of  time, 
and  a  certain  amount  of  money,  to  spend  upon  books. 
Hence  what  is  taken  of  time  and  money  for  uninstructive 


46  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

books  is  time  and  money  taken  away  from  the  instructive; 
and  I  contend  that  if  there  were  a  diminution  in  the 
quantity  of  the  books  of  this  sensational  kind  published, 
there  would  be  a  larger  reading  of  the  really  instruc- 
tive books;  and  that,  conversely,  the  multiplication  of 
this  class  of  lighter  books  would  tend  to  diminish  the 
reading  of  instructive  books.  I  am  now  speaking,  not, 
of  course,  of  the  higher  amusing  books,  because  there  are 
many  that  are  works  of  value,  but  of  the  lower  novels, 
Miss  Braddon's  and  others  such. 

Do  you  think  that  a  man  coming  home,  say,  from  his 
8  or  10  hours  labour  in  court  day  after  day  is  in  a  con- 
dition to  read  Lyell's  Geology  as  men  read  one  of  Miss 
Braddon's  novels?  We  are  speaking  of  some  ordinary 
man. — No,  not  an  ordinary  man,  certainly. 

Have  we  not  to  deal  with  literature  for  ordinary  men? 
— For  both  ordinary  and  extraordinary  men;  the  whole 
public. 

Are  not  the  ordinary  men  very  much  the  more  nu- 
merous ? — Certainly. 

Is  it  not,  therefore,  necessary  to  provide  some  kind  of 
literature,  as  good  as  you  can,  but  such  that  the  ordinary 
mind  can  receive  and  can  turn  into  some  profit,  together 
with  the  normal  work  of  life? — I  am  not  calling  into 
question  in  the  least  the  desirableness  of  a  large  supply 
of  literature  of  an  enlivening  and  amusing  and  pleasant 
kind,  as  well  as  a  large  supply  of  graver  literature,  ^fy 
remarks  point  to  the  literature  that  is  neither  instructive 
nor  aesthetic  in  the  higher  sense,  but  which  is  bad  in 
art,  bad  in  tone,  w^orthless  in  matter.  There  is  a  large 
quantity  of  that  literature,  and  that  literature  I  take  to 
be  the  one  which  will  be  the  most  fostered  by  the  pro- 
posed measures.    I  do  not  in  the  least  reprobate  the  read- 


VIEWS  CONCERNING   COPYRIGHT.  47 

ing  of  lighter  works  if  they  are  good  in  quality.  I  refer 
to  the  class  of  works  which  I  regard  as  not  good  in 
quality. 

But  do  you  not  think  you  must  leave  that  to  settle 
itself  on  those  princij^les  of  free  trade  which  you  have 
just  enunciated  so  clearly? — Certainly;  I  am  objecting 
to  a  policy  which  would  tend  to  encourage  the  one  and 
not  encourage  the  other. 

(Sir  H.  Holland.)  The  subscribers  to  the  London 
Library  are,  as  you  say,  the  elite  of  readers? — Yes. 

And  is  not  that  the  reason  why  there  is  this  difference 
as  to  the  reading  of  good  and  bad  books  taken  out  from 
that  library;  is  it  not  attributable  to  the  fact  that  these 
people  have  probably  bought  and  have  in  their  own 
houses  the  good  books,  but  that  they  want  to  look 
through  these  other  books,  and  therefore  get  them  from 
the  library? — There  may  be  a  qualification  of  that  kind; 
but  inasmuch  as  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  readers  of 
the  London  Library  are  ladies,  and  those  who  come  for 
lighter  literature,  I  do  not  think  it  at  all  probable  that 
they  would  have  bought  Lecky  or  Maine,  or  any  books  of 
that  kind. 

I  ask  the  question  because  I  rather  think  that  you 
will  find  a  very  curious  difference  from  that  which  you 
have  been  stating  if  you  go  to  the  Manchester  and  Liver- 
pool free  libraries.  You  will  find  there  that  the  working 
men  take  out  largely  Macaulay's  "  History  of  England  " 
and  that  class  of  book? — Well,  whatever  qualifications 
may  be  made  in  this  estimate,  or  the  inferences  from  this 
estimate,  I  do  not  think  they  can  touch  the  general  pro- 
position that  books  of  this  kind  which  in  the  London 
Library  circulate  most  largely,  are  books  of  the  kind 
which  circulate  most  largely  among  the  general  public, 


48  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

and  books  of  tlie  kind  which  a  publisher  of  rival  editions 
would  choose.     That  is  mj  point. 

But  might  not  that  very  evil  to  which  you  refer  be 
met  by  improving  the  taste  of  the  majority  of  the  poorer 
readers,  by  enabling  them  to  get  at  once  cheap  editions 
of  good  books? — The  question  is,  which  are  the  cheap 
editions  that  will  be  issued.  I  contend  that  they  are 
the  cheap  editions  of  these  books  of  a  dissipating  kind; 
and  that  the  main  effect  will  be  to  increase  the  dissipa- 
tion. 

You  do  not  think  that  the  earlier  publication  of  a 
cheap  edition  would  raise  the  tone  of  readers? — I  do  not 
see  that  it  would  do  so,  unless  it  could  be  shown  that  that 
would  tell  upon  the  graver  and  more  instructive  books. 
My  next  answer,  I  think,  will  be  an  answer  to  that. 

If  you  improve  the  tone  of  the  readers,  of  course  it 
does  tell  upon  the  graver  books  for  those  who  have  time 
to  read  the  graver  books;  but  there  is  a  large  class  of 
readers  who  have  not  that  time? — Yes. 

(Chairman.)  Referring  to  the  illustrations  which 
you  have  just  given  of  works  which  you  w^ould  denomi- 
nate as  worthless,  or  comparatively  valueless,  did  I  hear 
among  them  historical  memoirs  and  journals? — "  Crabbe 
Robinson's  Diary,"  for  instance;  I  call  that  a  book  of 
gossip  wdiich  anybody  may  read  and  be  none  the  better 
for  it. 

The  question  I  should  like  to  ask  is,  are  you  not  of 
opinion  that  books  of  that  sort  are  extremely  valuable  to 
the  intending  historian  of  the  epoch  to  which  they  refer? 
— It  may  be  that  there  are  in  them  materials  for  him. 
I  have  not  read  the  "  Greville  Memoirs  "  myself,  and  I 
have  no  intention  of  reading  it;  but  my  impression  is 
that  the  great  mass  of  it  is  an  appeal  to  the  love  of  gossip 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  49 

and  scandal,  and  tHat  it  is  a  book  which,  if  not  read  at 
all,  would  leave  persons  just  as  well  off  or  better. 

Take  "  Lord  Hervey's  Memoirs,"  in  the  reign  of 
George  the  Second;  if  you  bad  tbe  privilege  of  reading 
that  book  you  would  probably  say  it  was  an  extremely 
sensational  book,  but  knowing  tbe  position  wbicb  Lord 
Hervey  occupied  in  tlie  Court  and  family  of  George  tbe 
Second,  I  presume  we  may  take  for  granted  that  tbe  ex- 
traordinary facts  wbicb  be  relates  are  facts;  and  if  so 
tbey  would  form  tbe  basis  of  a  great  deal  of  truthful  his- 
tory, which  would  be  written  of  that  reign;  would  not 
that  be  so? — It  might  be  so,  no  doubt. 

Then  we  understand  you  to  mean  that  in  your  opin- 
ion the  royalty  system  would  not  cheapen  works  that  you 
would  describe  as  valuable? — I  think,  on  the  average  of 
cases,  quite  the  contrary.  I  believe  the  system  would 
raise  tbe  prices  of  tbe  graver  books.  Ask  what  a  pub- 
lisher will  say  to  himself  when  about  to  publish  a  book  of 
that  kind,  of  which  be  forms  a  good  opinion.  ^^  I  have 
bad  a  high  estimate  given  of  this  book.  The  man  is  a 
man  to  be  trusted;  the  book  possibly  will  be  a  success. 
Still  my  experiences  of  grave  books  generally,  are  such 
that  I  know  the  chances  are  rather  against  its  succeeding. 
If  it  should  be  a  success,  and  if  I  had  ten  years  now  to  sell 
the  edition,  I  might  print  1,000;  but,  under  this  arrange- 
ment, a  grave  book  not  selling  1,000  in  three  years,  or 
anything  like  it,  it  will  never  do  for  me  to  print  1,000. 
Should  it  be  much  talked  about  by  the  end  of  the  three 
years,  there  might  be  a  rival  edition,  and  my  stock  would 
be  left  on  my  bands.  Hence,  now  that  there  is  this  very 
short  time  in  which  I  can  sell  the  book,  I  must  print  a 
smaller  number — say  500.  But  if  I  print  500  and  ex- 
pect to  get  back  outlay  and  a  profit  on  that  small  number, 


50  VIEWS  CONCERNING   COrYRIGIIT. 

I  must  charge  more  than  I  should  do  if  I  printed  1,000 
and  had  time  to  sell  them.  Therefore  the  price  must  be 
raised.''  In  the  case  of  a  book  which  did  turn  out  a  suc- 
cess, it  might  eventually  happen  that  there  would  be  a 
cheap  edition  issued,  and  that  that  raised  price  would  not 
be  permanent;  but  this  argument  of  the  publisher  wdth 
himself,  would  lead  him  to  raise  the  price,  not  only  of 
that  book,  but  of  the  other  grave  books  which  he  pub- 
lished, all  of  which  w^ould  stand  in  the  same  position  of 
possibly  being  successes,  but  not  probably;  and  of  these, 
the  great  mass,  the  nine  out  of  ten  that  did  not  succeed, 
the  price  w^ould  remain  higher, — would  never  be  lowered. 
There  would  not  only  be  that  reason  for  raising  the  price : 
there  would  be  a  further  one.  If  a  man  in  the  wholesale 
book-trade,  who  puts  down  his  name  for  a  certain  num- 
ber of  copies,  knows  that  a  cheaper  edition  will  possibly 
come  out  by-and-bye,  the  result  will  be  that  he  will  take 
a  smaller  number  of  copies  than  he  would  otherwise  do. 
At  the  beginning  he  may  take  his  25  or  13,  as  the  case 
may  be ;  but  as  the  end  of  the  three  years  is  approaching 
he  will  say,  "  ^N'o,  I  will  not  take  a  large  number;  I  must 
take  two  or  three."  Then,  still  further,  the  reader  him- 
self will  be  under  the  same  bias.  He  will  say — '^  Well 
this  book  is  one  I  ought  to  have :  I  hear  it  highly  spoken 
of,  but  it  is  probable  that  there  will  be  by-and-bye  a  cheap 
edition;  I  will  wait  till  the  end  of  the  three  years." 
That  is  to  say,  both  wdiolesale  dealers  and  readers  Avould 
earlier  stop  their  purchases,  thinking  there  might  be  a 
cheap  edition;  and  that  would  further  tend  to  diminish 
the  number  printed  and  to  raise  the  price. 

{Sir  H.  Holland.)  Might  it  net  be  that  the  pub- 
lisher, instead  of  entering  into  those  calculations  that  you 
have  pointed  out,  would  consider,  knowing  that  other 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYEIGHT.  51 

editions  may  appear,  ^^  What  is  tlie  cheapest  form  in 
which  I  can  print  this  book?  What  can  I  afford  to  give 
the  author  consistently  with  bringing  out  •  the  cheapest 
possible  book,  so  that  I  may  be  secure  against  any  other 
publisher  bringing  out  a  cheaper  edition  "  ? — It  would 
be  a  very  reasonable  argument,  if  he  knew  which,  out  of 
these  various  books  of  the  graver  kind,  was  going  to  suc- 
ceed; but  since  nine  out  of  ten  do  not  succeed — do  not 
succeed,  at  least,  to  the  extent  of  getting  to  a  second 
edition — do  not  succeed,  therefore,  so  far  as  to  make  it  at 
all  likely  that  there  would  be  a  rival  edition,  and  that  a 
cheap  edition  would  pay,  he  will  never  argue  so;  inas- 
much as  he  would  in  that  case  be  printing,  of  the  nine 
books  that  would  not  succeed  sufficiently,  a  larger  edi- 
tion than  he  would  ever  sell.  He  must  begin  in  all  these 
cases  of  doubtful  grave  books  by  printing  small  editions. 
Where  an  author  brings  a  book  to  a  publisher,  the 
first  question  the  publisher  asks  himself  is,  of  course,  this, 
"  Is  this  book  likely  to  take? ''  and  then  if  he  thinks  it 
will  take,  he  has  to  consider  further,  in  what  degree 
will  it  take?  Will  it  have  a  large  sale  or  limited  sale? 
Because,  in  each  case  the  book  may  be  a  success,  though 
in  a  different  degree.  Then,  if  it  is  competent  for  any 
other  publisher  to  publish  an  edition,  it  may  be  assumed 
that  such  edition  would  be  a  cheap  one;  and,  therefore, 
has  not  the  original  publisher  this  further  question  to 
put  to  himself:  ''  The  book,  I  think,  will  take,  but  look- 
ing to  the  chances  of  a  cheaper  edition,  I  must  see  what 
compensation  I  can  give  to  the  author,  publishing  this 
book  as  cheap  as  possible,  so  that  I  may  not  be  underbid 
hereafter  "  ? — But,  I  think,  that  the  experiences  of  pub- 
lishers show  that  it  does  not  answer  their  purpose  to  run 
the  risk  of  cheap  editions  with  the  great  mass  of  graver 


52  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

books;  inasmucli  as  nine  out  of  ten  of  tliem  do  not  pay 
their  expenses — and  do  not  pay  their  expenses,  not  be- 
cause of  the  high  price,  but  because  they  do  not  get  into 
vogue  at  alL  The  publisher  would  argue — "  It  will 
never  do  to  print  cheap  editions  of  all  these  ten  because 
one  out  of  the  number  will  succeed.'' 

Of  course  he  does  not  do  so  now,  because  there  is  not 
any  possibility  of  another  publisher  underbidding  him  by 
a  cheap  edition;  but  I  am  assuming  a  case  where  any 
publisher,  on  payment  of  a  royalty,  can  publish  a  cheap 
edition:  then  the  original  publisher  Avould  have  to  con- 
sider, "  How  cheaply  can  I  publish  this  edition  so  that  I 
may  not  be  underbid  by  another  publisher  "  ? — That,  I 
say,  would  altogether  depend  upon  the  experience  of  the 
publishers  as  to  w^hat  w^as,  in  the  average  of  cases,  the 
sale  of  a  new  book.  In  most  instances  the  sale  of  a  new 
grave  book  is  very  small — not  sufficient  to  pay  the  ex- 
penses; and  I  think  the  publisher  would  make  a  great 
mistake  if,  in  the  case  of  such  a  book,  he  counted  upon 
getting  a  large  sale  at  once  by  a  low  price.  The  other 
argument  would,  it  seems  to  me,  be  the  one  he  would  use. 
In  fact,  I  not  only  think  so,  but  I  find  my  publishers 
think  so. 

(Chairman.)  Do  you  w^ish  to  instance  any  particular 
case  in  which  you  believe  that  a  fixed  royalty,  such  as  we 
heard  about,  would  have  hindered  the  diffusion  of  a  book 
of  permanent  value? — Yes;  I  have  an  extremely  striking 
and,  I  think,  wholly  conclusive,  instance  of  the  fatal  ef- 
fects,— the  extensive  fatal  effects, — that  would  have  re- 
sulted had  there  been  any  such  system  existing  as  that 
proposed.  I  refer  to  the  ^'International  Scientific  Series." 
I  happen  to  know  all  about  the  initiation  of  that.  It  was 
get  on  foot  by  an  American  friend  of  mine,  Prof.  You- 


VIEWS  COKCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  53 

mans,  wlio  came  over  liere  for  tlie  purpose.  I  aided  him, 
and  know  the  difficulties  that  were  to  be  contended  with, 
and  a  good  deal  concerning  the  negotiations.  The  pur- 
pose was  to  have  a  series  of  books  written  by  the  best  men 
of  the  time,  in  all  the  various  sciences,  which  should 
treat  of  certain  small  divisions  of  the  sciences  that  are 
in  states  of  rapid  growth — giving  to  the  public,  in  popu- 
lar form,  the  highest  and  latest  results;  and  it  was  pro- 
posed, as  a  means  of  achieving  this  end,  that  there  should 
be  an  international  arrangement,  which  should  secure  to 
authors  certain  portions  of  profits  coming  from  transla- 
tions, as  well  as  profits  from  originals  at  home,  and  the 
hope  was  that  some  publisher  might  be  obtained  who 
would  remunerate  these  authors  of  the  highest  type  at 
good  rates,  so  as  to  induce  them  to  contribute  volumes  to 
the  series.  Well,  this  attempt,  after  much  trouble,  suc- 
ceeded. A  number  of  the  leading  scientific  men  of  Eng- 
land, France,  and  Germany  w^ere  induced  to  co-operate. 
A  publisher  was  found,  or  rather  publishers  here  and 
elsewhere,  to  enter  into  the  desired  arrangements;  and 
an  English  publisher  was  found  who  offered  such  terms 
to  authors  in  England  as  led  men  in  the  first  rank  (and 
I  may  mention  Prof.  Huxley,  and  Prof.  Tyndall,  and 
Prof.  Bain,  and  Prof.  Balfour  Stewart,  and  a  great  num- 
ber of  others)  to  promise  to  write  volumes.  These  men, 
I  know,  were  reluctant,  as  busy  men,  with  their  many 
avocations,  and  their  incomes  to  get  for  their  families, 
would  naturally  be,  and  were  induced  to  enter  into  the 
scheme  only  on  its  being  made  manifest  to  them  that 
they  would  reap  good  profits.  The  English  publisher 
offered  a  20  per  cent,  commission  on  the  retail  price,  paid 
down  on  first  publication,  and  for  every  subsequent  edi- 
tion paid  six  months  after  date;  and  there  were  certain 


5J:  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

snialler  percentages  to  come  from  abroad.  Xow,  tlie 
English  pnblislier  proposed  to  give  those  terms,  knowing 
that  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to  get  back  his  out- 
lay unless  he  had  a  number  of  years  in  which  to  do  it. 
lie  had  to  stereotype,  he  had  to  pay  at  once  these  sums  to 
authors,  and  he  had  to  publish  the  books  at  a  cheap  rate; 
for,  by  the  way,  I  ought  to  have  said  that  part  of  the 
plan  was  that  these  books  should  be  sold  at  low  prices:  I 
may  instance  a  volume  of  420  pages  for  5s.  These  terms 
would,  I  take  it,  have  been  absolutely  out  of  the  question 
had  there  been  such  an  arrangement  as  that  under  which 
the  publisher,  instead  of  having  many  years  to  recoup 
himself,  would  have  had  rival  editions  to  compete  with  in 
the  space  of  three  years.  I  do  not,  however,  put  that  as 
an  opinion.  I  have  taken  the  precaution  to  obtain  from 
Mr.  King,  the  publisher,  a  definite  answer  on  the  point. 
This  is  the  paragraph  of  his  letter  which  is  specially  rele- 
vant :  — '^  Authors  can  have  no  difficulty  in  proving  that 
this ''  (meaning  the  system  which  I  told  him  was  pro- 
posed) "  would  be  most  unjust  to  them,  a  confiscation,  in 
fact,  of  their  property;  but  I,  from  a  publisher's  point  of 
view,  should  like  to  declare  that  the  terms  on  wdiich  my 
firm  have  undertaken  the  ^  International  Scientific 
Series  '  would  be  impossible  on  such  a  limitation.'^  'Now 
here,  then,  we  have  a  series  of  highly  valuable  books,  I 
think  of  the  kind  specially  to  be  encouraged,  amounting 
to  between  20  and  30  already  published,  and  potentially 
to  a  much  larger  number,  which  w^ould  not  have  existed 
at  all  had  there  been  in  force  the  arrangement  proposed; 
inasmuch  as  the  publisher  affirms  that  he  would  not  have 
offered  such  terms,  and  I  can  testify  that  in  the  absence 
of  terms  as  tempting  as  those,  authors  w^ould  not  have 
agreed  to  co-operate. 


VIEWS  CONCEENIKG  COPYRIGHT.  55 

(Sir  II.  Holland.)  Was  Mr.  King  made 'aware  that 
tliere  would  be  a  limited  time  within  which  each  volume 
would  be  protected? — Yes,  three  years.  He  did  not 
count  upon  anything  like  adequate  return  in  that  time. 
He  says — "  AVe  are  a  long  w^ay  off  profit  as  yet  on  the 
series ''  (I  think  it  is  nearly  five  years  since  it  com- 
menced), "  although  I  am  convinced  that  ultimately  w^e 
and  the  authors,  too,  will  be  well  satisfied." 

That  would  raise  the  question  which  I  wanted  to  put, 
whether  in  a  case  like  that  it  would  have  been  possible 
to  have  published  a  cheaper  edition  than  the  one  now 
published? — Yes,  in  the  absence  of  the  author's  20  per 
cent. 

In  the  case  which  you  have  brought  to  our  notice  may 
w^e  assume  that  the  cheapest  form  of  edition  was  pub- 
lished consistently  with  fair  profit  to  the  author  and  pub- 
lisher?— I  think,  certainly,  wdth  anything  like  a  tolerable 
mode  of  getting  up.  Of  course  you  may  bring  down  a 
thing  to  rubbishing  type  and  straw  paper;  but  I  was 
speaking  of  a  presentable  book.  They  are  very  cheap  for 
presentable  books. 

That,  perhaps,  w^ould  be  one  of  the  evils  arising  from 
a  system  of  royalty,  that  you  would  get  extremely  bad 
and  incorrect  editions  published  of  a  book,  even  in  the 
first  instance  ? — Very  likely. 

Because  it  would  be  the  publisher's  object,  if  that 
system  were  thoroughly  established,  to  publish  such  an 
edition  that  another  publisher  could  not  underbid  him 
at  the  end  of  the  three  years;  that  would  be,  w^ould  it 
not,  the  general  object  of  the  publisher? — Yes. 

In  this  case  I  understand  you  to  say  that  he  could 
not,  consistently  with  fair  profits  to  the  author  and  pub- 
lisher, and  consistently  wdtli  its  being  a  properly  printed 


56  VIEWS  COXCERNIXG  COPYRIGHT. 

work,  witliout  wliicli  a  work  of  that  kind  would  be  of 
very  little  value,  have  published  a  cheaper  edition? — 
He  could  not. 

And  yet  he  would  not  have  been  able  to  publish  such 
an  edition  if  he  had  run  the  risk  of  being  underbid? — 
Certainly  not.  He  says — ^'  I  confess  nay  idea  in  propos- 
ing such  terms  as  those  of  the  ^  International  Scientific 
Series,'  looked  forward  to  a  yearly  increasing  interest  in 
scientific  literature,  and  an  ever  enlarging  circle  of  read- 
ers able  to  appreciate  books  of  a  high  class.''  So  he  was 
looking  for  a  distant  effect. 

I  am  anxious,  as  Mr.  King  is  not  here,  to  get  your 
own  opinion  upon  that  point;  do  you  concur  in  his 
views  ? — Yes,  certainly. 

{Chairman.)  Have  3'ou  any  further  reasons  for 
thinking  that  measures  of  the  kind  which  we  have  been 
discussing,  taken  in  the  interest  of  cheapening  books, 
might  end  in  doing  the  reverse? — I  think  there  is  an- 
other way  in  which  there  would  be  a  general  operation 
of  this  system  of  rival  editions,  which  would  have,  indi- 
rectly, the  effect  of  raising  the  prices  all  round;  namely, 
the  waste  of  stock.  It  would  inevitably  happen  that 
every  publisher  of  an  original  edition  would,  from  time 
to  time,  have  a  rival  edition  make  its  appearance  before 
his  edition  was  sold.  In  that  case  his  remnant  of  an  edi- 
tion got  up  in  a  relatively  expensive  style,  would  either 
have  to  be  not  sold  at  all  or  sold  at  a  sacrifice.  Further, 
it  would  happen  from  time  to  time  that  two  publishers, 
unknown  to  one  another,  would  issue  rival  editions,  both 
of  which  would  not  be  demanded ;  there  would  therefore 
be  a  waste  of  stock.  Evidently  the  system  of  competing 
with  one  another  in  the  dark,  would  continually  lead  to 
production  in  excess  of  demand.     What  would  be  the 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  57 

result?  If  there  is  an  increased  percentage  of  waste 
stock,  that  has  somehow  to  be  paid  for,  if  business  is  to 
be  carried  on  at  alL  And  as  we  know  that  tradesmen 
have  to  raise  their  average  prices  to  cover  their  bad 
debts;  so,  if  publishers  find  an  increase  of  bad  stock  they 
must  raise  their  prices  to  cover  the  loss  on  bad  stock. 

(Mr.  Trollope.)  AVould  not  the  ordinary  laws  of 
trade  correct  such  an  evil? — This  interference  with  the 
laws  of  trade  would  entail  an  abnormal  production  of 
waste  stock.  Under  the  present  system  a  publisher  does 
not  publish  a  cheap  edition  till  the  other  is  gone;  but 
under  the  proposed  system,  with  cheap  copies  perhaps 
sent  from  the  colonies,  there  must  be  waste  stock. 

When  the  system  had  been  in  operation  for  a  time 
do  you  not  consider  that  that  evil  would  correct  itself  by 
the  ordinary  laws  of  trade?  We  are  aware  that  at  first 
the  disruption  of  an  existing  state  of  things  will  create 
much  confusion,  and  such  evil  as  you  have  described; 
but  are  you  not  of  opinion  that  this  would  rectify  itself 
after  a  time? — I  do  not  see  how  it  could  rectify  itself, 
if  the  system  of  rival  editions  continued,  and  operated 
in  the  way  that  it  is  expected  to  do.  But  as  I  have  al- 
ready indicated  by  certain  hypothetical  remarks,  I  do 
not  think  it  would  continue  and  operate  in  that  way.  I 
say,  however,  that  if  rival  editions  were  issued  by  men 
not  knowing  each  other's  doings,  there  must  from  time  to 
time  occur  in  the  business  of  each  publisher  loss  of  stock. 

{Cliairman.)  From  the  answer  to  the  last  question 
that  has  been  put  by  Mr.  Trollope  I  gather  it  to  be  your 
opinion  that  the  arrangement  w^ould  be  practically  in- 
operative so  far  as  the  anticipated  competition  was  con- 
cerned?— I  think  that  after  a  period  of  perturbation,  a 
period  of  fighting  and  general  disaster  in  the  publishing 


58  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

business,  tliere  would  arise  a  tacit  understanding  among 
publishing  houses,  which  would,  in  a  large  degree,  de- 
feat the  purpose  of  the  measure;  and  I  say  this  on  the 
strength  of  definite  facts  furnished  by  trade-practices 
in  America.  These  facts  I  have  from  the  before-named 
American  friend.  Prof.  Youmans,  with  whom  from  time 
to  time,  when  over  here,  I  have  had  to  discuss  the  prob- 
ability of  pirated  editions  of  my  own  books  in  America. 
My  books  in  America  are  published  by  a  large  house 
tliere,  the  Appletons;  and  they- deal  with  me  very  fairly 
— pay  me  as  well  as  American  authors  are  paid.  I  have 
gathered  from  Prof.  Youmans  that  the  danger  of  the 
issue  of  rival  editions  of  my  books  in  America  is  very 
small;  because  there  exists  among  the  American  pub- 
lishing houses,  the  understanding  that  when  one  house 
brings  out  an  English  book,  other  houses  will  not  inter- 
fere: the  mere  circumstance  of  having  been  the  first 
to  seize  upon  a  book,  is  held  to  give  a  priority,  such  as 
is  tacitly  regarded  as  a  monopoly.  That  condition  of 
things  has  been  established  through  a  process  of  fighting; 
for  when  it  did  at  first  happen  that  American  houses 
brought  out  rival  editions  of  the  same  English  book, 
or  one  edition,  rather,  after  another,  that,  of  course,  was 
a  declaration  of  war  between  the  two  houses,  and  im- 
mediately there  was  retaliation,  and  it  ended  in  a  fight. 
The  house  attacked  revenged  itself  by  issuing,  perhaps, 
a  still  cheaper  edition,  or  by  doing  the  like  thing  with 
some  work  subsequently  published  by  the  aggressing 
house;  and  after  bleeding  one  another  in  this  way  for  a 
length  of  time  there  resulted  a  treaty  of  peace,  and  a 
gradual  establishment  of  this  understanding,  that  they 
would  respect  each  other's  j^riorities.  If  that  is  what 
happened  in  America,  when  the  only  claim  that  a  pub- 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  59 

lislier  had  to  tlie  exclusive  publication  of  a  book  was  the 
claim  established  by  prior  seizing  of  it,  of  prior  printing, 
much  more  will  it  happen  here  in  England,  among  pub- 
lishers who  have  paid  for  their  books,  or  who  have  en- 
tered into  arrangements  with  authors  for  half  profits, 
or  what  not.  Having  established  certain  equitable 
claims  to  these  books  they  will  very  much  more  decidedly 
fight  any  houses  that  interfere  with  them,  by  issuing 
rival  editions.  If  the  men  who  have  ill-founded  claims 
fight,  still  more  will  the  men  who  have  well-founded 
claims  fight.  Hence,  there  would  occur  among  the  Eng- 
lish publishers,  when  this  system  came  into  operation, 
a  period  of  warfare  lasting,  probably,  for  some  years, 
and  ending  in  a  peace  based  on  the  understanding  that 
any  publisher  who  had  brought  out  a  book  would  be 
regarded  as  having  an  exclusive  claim  to  it,  and  would 
not  be  interfered  with.  The  fear  of  retaliation  would 
prevent  the  issue  of  the  rival  editions. 

(Sir  Henry  Holland.)  And  therefore  would  pre- 
vent the  publication  by  a  rival  publisher  of  a  cheaper 
edition? — Yes. 

(Chairman.)  Then  on  the  grounds  that  you  have  ex- 
plained, you  think  the  system  would  become  before  long 
wholly  inoperative? — Xot  wholly  inoperative,  I  think: 
inoperative  for  good,  not  inoperative  for  evil.  In  the 
course  of  this  early  phase  to  be  passed  through,  in  which 
houses  issued  rival  editions  against  each  other  and  got 
into  the  state  of  warfare,  it  would  happen  that  the 
weaker  would  go  to  the  wall:  the  smaller  publishers 
would  not  be  able  to  stand  in  the  fight  with  the  larger 
publishers,  and  they  would  tend  to  fail.  And  further, 
although  treaties  of  peace  would  be  eventually  reached 
between  the  more  powerful  publishers,  who  would  be 


60  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYEIGHT. 

afraid  of  each  other,  and  dare  not  issue  rival  editions  of 
each  others  books,  there  would  be  no  such  feeling  on 
the  part  of  large  publishers  towards  small  publishers.  If 
a  small  publisher  happened  to  issue  a  successful  book, 
a  larger  publisher  would  have  no  fear  in  issuing  a  rival 
edition  of  that.  Hence,  therefore,  the  tendency  would 
be  for  the  small  publishers  to  be  ruined  from  having 
their  successful  books  taken  away  from  them.  But  that 
would  not  be  the  only  tendency:  there  would  be  a  sec- 
ondary tendency  working  the  same  way.  For  after  this 
fighting  had  gone  on  a  year  or  two,  it  would  become 
notorious  among  authors  that  if  thoy  published  their 
books  with  small  publishers  they  would  be  in  danger  of 
rival  editions,  in  case  of  success,  being  issued  by  large 
publishers;  but  that,  contrariwise,  if  they  published  with 
large  publishers  they  would  be  in  no  danger  of  rival 
editions.  Hence  they  would  desert  the  small  publishers ; 
and  in  a  double  w^ay  the  small  publishers  would  lose 
their  business.  We  should  progress  towards  a  monopoly 
of  a  few  large  houses;  and  the  power  which  such  have 
already  of  dictating  terms  to  authors,  would  become 
still  greater. 

And  if  I  understand  you  rightly,  the  power  would 
be  not  only  to  dictate  terms  to  authors  but  of  price  to  the 
public? — Yes,  they  would  be  able  to  combine.  When 
you  got  a  small  number  of  publishers,  and  they  could 
agree  to  a  system  of  terms:  the  public  would  be  power- 
less against  them,  and  authors  would  be  powerless  against 
them. 

Then,  in  your  opinion,  is  there  any  way  by  which 
works  could  be  cheapened  by  legislative  enactment? — 
There  is  one  way,  and  that  a  way  in  principle  exactly 
the  reverse  of  that  which  is  contended  for  in  this  meas- 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  61 

ure;  namely,  the  extension  of  copyright.  I  do  not  mean 
the  extension  in  time;  I  mean  the  extension  in  area.  On 
this  point  I  am  happy  to  say  there  appears  to  be  agree- 
ment between  the  two  sides.  From  the  evidence  which 
I  have  read  I  gather  that  it  is  proposed  along  with  this 
limitation  of  copyright  in  time  to  extend  copyright  in 
area.  I  do  not  altogether  understand  the  theory  which, 
while  it  ignores  an  author's  equitable  claim  to  the  product 
of  his  brain-work  in  respect  of  duration,  insists  upon  the 
equity  of  his  claim  to  that  product  of  his  brain-work,  as 
extending  not  only  to  his  ow^n  nation  but  to  other  na- 
tions. However,  I  am  glad  to  have  agreement  so  far; 
and  I  hold,  along  with  those  who  support  the  proposed 
measure,  that  the  enlargement  of  the  markets  by  means 
of  international  copyright  would  be  a  very  effectual 
means  of  cheapening  books.  It  would  be  a  more  effectual 
means  of  cheapening  the  best  books.  I  may  refer  again 
to  this  International  Scientific  Series.  One  of  the  means 
by  which  that  series  has  been  made  cheap,  was,  that  the 
American  publisher  and  the  English  publisher,  agreed 
to  share  between  them  the  cost  of  production,  in  so  far 
as  that  the  American  publisher  had  duplicate  stereotype 
plates  and  paid  half  the  cost  of  setting  up  the  type. 
E'ow  it  is  clear  that  if  the  outlay  is  diminished  by  hav- 
ing one  cost  of  composition  for  two  countries  instead  of 
a  cost  for  each,  the  book  can  be  issued  at  a  lower  rate  in 
both  countries  than  it  could  otherwise  be.  And  that  ar- 
rangement which  was  voluntarily  made,  under  a  kind 
of  spontaneous  copyright,  in  the  case  of  the  International 
Series,  would  be  forced,  as  it  were,  upon  publishers  in 
the  case  of  an  established  copyright.  Consequently  there 
would  be  habitually  an  economization  of  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction, by  dividing  it  between  the  two  countries;  and 


62  VIEWS  CONCERNING   COPYRIGHT. 

licnce  tlicrc  would  be  a  lowering  of  the  price.  And 
then  there  is  the  further  fact  that  this  would  tell  espe- 
cially upon  the  more  serious  books.  On  books  of  a 
popular  kind  the  chief  cost  is  for  paper  and  print:  large 
editions  being  printed.  Therefore  it  does  not  so  much 
matter  in  America  having  to  set  up  the  type  afresh. 
But  in  the  case  of  a  grave  book  of  wdiicli  the  circulation 
is  small,  the  cost  of  composition  is  the  main  element  in 
the  cost ;  and  the  economization  of  that  cost,  by  dividing 
it  between  England  and  America,  would  serve  very  con- 
siderabl}^  to  lower  the  price. 

(Dr.  Smith.)  Then,  if  I  understand  you  aright,  you 
do  not  approve  of  the  principle  adopted  in  the  Canada 
Act,  in  the  Act  passed  by  the  Canadian  Legislature  of 
1875,  confirmed  by  the  Imperial  Act,  by  which  it  is 
necessary  in  order  to  obtain  copyright  in  Canada 
that  the  w^orks  should  be  set  up  afresh? — I  think  that 
it  is  obviously  nothing  else  than  a  means  of  staving 
off  the  opposition  of  printers,  and  a  very  mischievous 
arrangement. 

Would  it  not  be  the  fact  that  if  a  work  could  be  set 
up  once  for  all  in  the  country,  and  circulate  in  the  two 
countries,  the  price  of  the  book  would  be  diminished? 
— Unquestionably. 

(Sir.  II.  Holland.)  You  are  aware  of  the  difficulties 
that  have  been  raised  by  the  United  States  publishers, 
that  constant  attempts  have  been  made  ever  since  1854 
and  before  to  make  a  copyright  convention,  and  that 
there  is  no  very  great  probability  of  these  attempts  prov- 
ing successful.  Have  you  any  particular  suggestion  to 
bring  before  the  Commissioners  which  would  in  your 
opinion  tend  towards  making  the  Americans  favourable 
to  a  convention? — I  am  sorry  to  say  I  do  not  see  my  way 


VIE:wS  CONCERXIXG  COPYFtlGHT.  63 

towards  any  such  suggestion.  I  am  merely  rej^ljing  to 
the  general  question  whether  legislation  could  do  any- 
thing to  cheapen  books,  and  saying  that  the  only  thing 
I  thought  it  could  do  would  be  to  get,  in  some  way,  an 
extension  of  area  for  copyright. 

The  following  is  the  speech  referred  to  above  as  hav- 
ing been  made  at  a  meeting  of  the  National  Association 
for  the  Promotion  of  Social  Science. 

"With  respect  to  the  duration  of  copyright,  I  would 
remark  first,  that  if  any  reason  is  to  be  given  for  fixing 
a  term  of  years,  a  good  one  may  be  given  for  the  Com- 
missioners proposal;  whereas,  for  the  term  proposed  in 
this  bill  I  see  no  reason:  why  fifty  rather  than  sixty  or 
forty  should  be  fixed  cannot  be  shown;  but  it  may  be 
shown  why  copyright  for  life  and  thirty  years  after  death 
is  reasonable.  The  author  is  a  man  carrying  on  a  money- 
getting  occupation,  and  should,  if  possible,  be  put  in  the 
position  of  feeling  that  he  is  doing  as  well  as  may  be  for 
his  family,  and  that  he  is  not  by  following  that  occupa- 
tion in  place  of  another  sacrificing  them.  If  he  is  con- 
scious that  by  pursuing  authorship  he  runs  the  risk  of 
leaving  his  children  without  any  provision  after  his 
death,  he  may  be  led  to  think  that  duty  to  them  should 
make  him  choose  another  occupation.  But  by  making 
the  duration  of  copyright  for  his  life  and  thirty  years 
afterwards,  he  is  encouraged  by  a  reasonable  belief 
that  he  will  leave  means  for  supporting  his  family  for  a 
term  sufficient  to  allow  his  children  to  be  brought  to 
a  self-supporting  maturity.  Let  me  next  refer  to  an- 
other reason  given  very  clearly  by  Mr.  "Westlake  for 
preferring  a  fixed  termination  of  copyright  after  death, 
rather  than  a  series  of  terminations  of  different  dates,  for 


Q4:  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

the  works  published  at  different  dates.  It  happens  that  I 
can  give  personal  illustrations  of  the  great  inconven- 
iences, and  I  may  say  mischiefs,  which  would  arise  from 
the  termination  of  an  author's  copyrights  at  different 
dates.  I  was  not  aware  until  two  days  ago,  when  talk- 
ing to  Dr.  Smith  on  this  question,  that  the  existing 
cheap  edition  of  Hallam's  Middle  Ages  is  an  imperfect 
work.  I  have  been  making  quotations  from  that  work. 
I  shall  now  have  to  go  back  on  my  quotations  and  see 
if  I  have  been  betrayed  into  errors;  and  observe,  further, 
that  but  for  mere  accident  I  should  have  been  in  the  pre- 
dicament of,  perhaj)s,  having  quoted  obsolete  passages. 
I  will  give  a  second  illustration,  also  personal,  but  in 
another  way.  In  1862  I  published  a  work  entitled  Fii^st 
Princi'ples.  Although  the  ideas  contained  in  it  were  true 
as  far  as  they  went,  they  were  imperfectly  developed 
and  w^ere  imperfectly  organised.  That  which  was  pri- 
mary was  put  as  secondary  and  vice  versa.  At  the  end 
of  five  years  I  published  a  second  or  a  re-organised  edi- 
tion presenting  the  doctrine  under  quite  a  different 
aspect.  !Now  what  would  happen  in  this  case  supposing 
copyrights  terminated  at  the  end  of  fifty  years?  My 
edition  of  1862  would  be  republished  in  a  cheap  form, 
while  the  re-organized  edition  was  still  copyright;  and 
for  the  succeeding  5  years  there  would  be  a  propagation 
of  my  erroneous  views;  and  the  imperfect  edition,  fill- 
ing the  market,  would  hinder  the  spread  of  the  perfect 
edition  when  subsequently  published.  In  brief  I  may 
say  that  this  proposal  is  one  which,  if  carried  out,  w^ould 
establish  a  premium  on  the  propagation  of  error.  I  pass 
now  to  the  question  of  colonial  reprints.  If  the  clause 
which  gives  reprinting  powers,  under  certain  conditions, 
had  been  a  clause  in  a  bill  proposed  centuries  ago,  I 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  65 

should  not  have  been  surprised;  but  that  such  a  clause 
should  appear  in  a  bill  at  the  present  time  after  the  free 
trade  doctrines  have  been  established,  is  to  me  astound- 
ing. I  read  in  this  clause  (the  72nd) — ''  Whereas  it  is 
desirable  to  provide  means  whereby  the  inhabitants  of 
all  British  possessions  may  obtain,  at  a  moderate  price, 
a  sufficient  supply  of  books  ..."  Thus  we  have  ac- 
tually come  back  to  the  notion  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
state  to  provide  the  colonies  with  a  supply  of  a  com- 
modity at  a  moderate  price.  It  is  really  a  reversion  to 
the  form  of  legislation  which  in  old  times  dictated  the 
rates  of  wages,  provided  for  the  qualities  and  quantities 
of  goods,  entered  into  factories  to  inspect  processes  of 
production,  established  bounties  and  restrictions,  and  so 
forth.  For  all  these  things  were  done  with  the  view  of 
obtaining  good  supplies  of  commodities  at  reasonable 
rates.  AYhat  can  possibly  be  the  defence  for  this  revival 
of  antique  legislation?  It  is  that  though  the  state  has 
proved  a  bad  judge  in  respect  of  food  and  clothing,  and 
things  of  daily  use,  it  is  likely  to  be  a  good  judge  in  re- 
spect of  literature?  Is  it  that  having  failed  in  the  rela- 
tively easy  thing,  it  will  succeed  in  the  relatively  diffi- 
cult thing  ?  Then,  further,  what  is  the  particular  author- 
ity which  it  is  proposed  to  constitute  the  judge?  The 
Governor  of  the  colony.  Who  is  he?  Usually  he  is  a 
general.  Is  he  a  fit  man  to  judge  whether  a  certain  book 
is  adequately  supplied  in  the  colony,  and  whether  such 
and  such  a  price  is  a  reasonable  one  for  it  ?  Then  what  is 
proposed  by  way  of  defence  for  the  author?  The  author 
is  to  have  due  notice  of  the  proposed  reprint.  He  may, 
it  seems,  go  personally  and  make  objections;  but  what 
author  will  ever  go  to  the  colony  to  oppose  ?  He  may  do 
it  by  his  agent;  but  what  agent  has  the  author  in  a 


QQ  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

colony?  lie  probably  knows  nobody  there.  Supposing 
lie  could  find  a  fit  agent,  what  likelihood  is  there  of  the 
cost  of  such  a  transaction  ever  being  repaid,  even  suppos- 
ing he  succeeds  in  his  opposition  ?  The  cost  of  the  trans- 
action would,  probably,  be  more  than  the  author  would 
get  for  an  edition  of  his  work.  Practically,  therefore, 
the  clause  involves  abolition  of  copyright  in  the  colony; 
and  we  have  good  reasons  for  suspecting  that  the  pro- 
posed royalty  would  bring  next  to  nothing.  Even  sup- 
posing it  should  turn  out  that  the  arrangement  worked 
as  intended,  I  should  still  demur  to  the  assumption  that 
the  colony  would  benefit.  It  continually  happens  in 
every  kind  of  legislation  that  the  unanticipated  results 
immensely  exceed  in  importance  the  anticijiated  results. 
AVe  may  suspect  it  would  be  so  here.  For  wdiat  would 
be  the  books  which  a  colonial  publisher  would  be  likely 
to  reprint?  Clearly  the  books  which  would  repay  him. 
What  would  they  be?  Why  the  novels  of  the  day,  the 
gossiping  biographies,  the  books  which  feed  the  voracious 
appetite  for  personalities :  those  would  be  the  books  they 
would  seize  upon  for  the  purpose  of  reprinting.  But  the 
books  of  an  instructive  kind,  the  books  of  small  circula- 
tion, would  not,  in  most  cases,  pay  the  expenses  of  their 
republication.  But  if,  while  you  do  not  cheapen  the  in- 
structive books,  you  do  cheapen  the  amusing  books,  you 
make  it  easier  for  people  to  satiate  their  appetites  upon 
these  and  diminish  their  appetites  for  the  others.  If 
those  who  have  daily  but  a  short  time  for  reading  can  get 
easy  access  to  the  one  kind  of  literature,  while  the  access 
to  the  other  kind  is  difficult,  they  will  be  led  to  read  more 
of  the  first  than  they  would  otherwise  do,  at  the  expense 
of  the  last.  The  consequence  will  be  not  an  educating 
influence  but  an  uncducating  influence.     Before  closing, 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  07 

let  me  say  a  few  words  on  the  general  question  of  copy- 
right. There  is  a  current  belief,  which  was  expressed 
before  the  commission,  that  copyright  is  an  artificial  ar- 
rangement— that  it  is  some  privilege  granted  by  the  state 
to  secure  the  author  a  monopoly.  I  hold  this  to  be  an  er- 
roneous view.  If  the  state  will  in  this  matter  do  what  the 
state  has  to  do  in  all  other  matters  of  commerce,  namely, 
enforce  contracts,  copyright  comes  into  existence  as  a 
matter  of  course.  In  all  other  trading  transactions,  the 
law  recognises  contracts,  both  overt  and  tacit.  It  not 
only  recognises  those  in  which  there  has  been  an  agree- 
ment by  signature ;  it  recognises  those  in  which  not  even 
an  oral  agreement  has  been  made.  If  a  man  goes  into 
a  shop  and  asks  for  a  pound  of  tea  or  any  other  com- 
modity, and  it  is  handed  over  to  him,  it  is  not  supposed 
to  be  requisite  that  he  should  specify  beforehand  that  he 
will  give  so  much  money  for  it.  That  is  to  say,  the  state 
in  these  cases  recognises  the  tacit  contract  to  pay  a  price, 
though  this  has  not  been  mentioned.  What  is  the  tacit 
contract  with  regard  to  a  book?  When  the  buyer  of  a 
book  goes  into  a  shop  and  buys  from  the  author's  agent, 
what  is  the  contract  entered  into  in  the  purchase  of  that 
book?  The  tacit  understanding  is  that  it  is  sold  for  the 
purpose  of  reading,  either  by  the  individual  or  other  in- 
dividuals, and  for  no  other  purpose.  Ask  what  would 
happen  if  the  purchaser  announced  that  he  was  about  to 
use  that  book  for  reprinting.  Clearly  it  would  either  not 
be  sold  to  him  at  all,  or  it  would  be  sold  at  a  relatively 
immense  price — a  price  such  as  w^ould  cover  the  profit  on 
the  edition.  If,  therefore,  the  law  is  to  enforce  tacit  con- 
tracts, it  is  to  enforce  this  tacit  contract,  that  the  book 
bought  shall  be  for  reading  purposes  and  not  for  reprint- 
ing purposes;  and  if  it  enforces  this  tacit  contract,  copy- 


68  VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT. 

right  results  as  a  consequence.  I  contend,  then,  that  the 
state  has  nothing  more  to  do  in  the  matter  than  to  make 
provisions  for  carrying  out  this  tacit  contract  in  all  its 
details.  A  word  as  to  the  cheapening  of  literature.  The 
true  way  to  get  cheap  books  is  rigorously  to  abide  by 
copyright  as  thus  resulting,  and  to  extend  its  area.  Such 
extension  of  copyright  as  would  bring  under  it  a  larger 
population,  and  therefore  a  larger  number  of  purchasers, 
would  make  it  possible  to  lower  the  prices  of  books;  but 
if  you  narrow  the  area  of  the  copyright  and  so  dimin- 
ish the  number  of  purchasers  of  the  book,  you  neces- 
sarily raise  its  price.  This  proposed  arrangement,  by 
which  colonists  are  to  have  a  cheaper  book,  will,  by  cut- 
ting off  the  colonial  sale  of  the  English  edition,  raise  the 
price  in  England.  Conversely,  if  copyright  could  be  ex- 
tended by  including  the  United  States,  the  prices  of  all 
books  might  be  lowered.  Where  there  is  an  agreement, 
as  there  frequently  is  already,  between  British  and 
American  publishers  to  share  the  cost  of  composition  and 
stereotyping,  the  prices  charged  for  books  are  reduced 
both  here  and  in  America.  Under  an  international  copy- 
right this  exceptional  result  w^ould  become  a  general 
result. 

hi  reply  to  ohjeciions  there  were  the  following  supple- 
mentary remarlxS. 

It  is  rather  odd  that  we  should  get  to  the  abstract 
question  at  the  end  of  our  discussion,  and  not  at  the  be- 
ginning. We  should  have  settled  the  basis  at  first.  I 
now  find  myself  in  the  position  of  having  to  prove  that 
copyright  is  not,  as  it  has  been  called,  a  monopoly;  and 
to  prove  that  the  maintenance  of  copyright  is  really  free 
trade.    I  can  hardly  go  into  the  matter  adequately  now; 


VIEWS  CONCERNING  COPYRIGHT.  69 

but  I  would  point  out  tliat  a  monopoly,  properly  so-called, 
and  free  trade,  properly  so-called,  have  these  charac- 
ters. The  monopolist  is  a  man  who  stands  in  the  way 
of  some  one  who,  in  the  natural  order  of  things,  would 
be  able  to  carry  on  some  business  in  his  absence  just 
as  well  as  in  his  presence.  The  free-trader  is  one  who 
needs  no  aid  from  the  monopolist,  but  simply  wishes  to 
do  that  which  he  could  do  did  the  monopolist  not  exist. 
But  one  who,  wishing  to  reprint  an  author's  book,  calls 
the  author  a  monopolist  for  preventing  him,  stands  in  a 
widely  different  position.  He  proposes  not  simply  to 
use  his  powers  with  the  aid  of  such  natural  resources 
as  are  open  to  all.  He  proposes  to  use  that  which  would 
not  exist  but  for  the  author.  It  is,  therefore,  an  utter 
misuse  of  the  word  to  call  the  author's  claim  a  monopoly. 
Moreover,  those  who  so  call  it  show  the  fallacy  of  their 
characterization  by  not  daring  to  act  upon  it.  Free 
trade  makes  no  compromise  with  monopoly,  rightly  so- 
called.  The  free  trader  is  ready  to  abolish  monopoly  at 
once,  and  makes  no  terms  with  it — sees  no  need  for  fos- 
tering it.  Whereas  those  who  take  the  position  that 
copyright  is  a  monopoly  are  obliged  to  admit  that  you 
must  allow  this  so-called  monopoly  for  a  time.  They 
dare  not  propose  that  the  moment  an  author's  book  is 
published,  any  one  should  be  allowed  to  reprint  it;  and 
they  thus  prove  that  they  have  not  the  courage  of  their 
opinions — do  not  really  believe  that  which  they  profess 
to  believe.  On  the  other  hand,  I  contend,  as  before,  that 
freedom  of  trade  is  essentially  freedom  of  contract,  and 
that  if  authors,  through  their  agents,  are  allow^ed  to 
make  what  contracts  they  please  with  book-buyers,  while 
the  state  stands  by  and  enforces  the  contracts  made, 
copyright  necessarily  comes  into  existence. 


70  A  REJOINDER  TO  MR.   McLEXXAX. 


A  EEJOIXDEE  TO  ME.  McLEXXA^L 

In  Part  III  of  the  Principles  of  Sociology,  dealing 
witli  ^'  Domestic  Institutions/'  I  liad  occasion  to  criticize 
certain  of  tlie  views  set  forth  by  Mr.  McLennan  in  his 
Primitive  Marriage.  Sometime  after,  in  two  articles  in 
TJie  Fortnightly  Bevieiu,  the  last  of  which  appeared  in 
June,  1877,  he  replied  to  my  criticisms.  To  prevent 
prolongation  of  the  controversy,  the  Editor  of  The  Fort- 
nightly  Review  sent  me  a  proof  of  this  last  article;  with 
the  result  that  what  I  had  to  say  in  answer  was  appended. 
As  Mr.  McLennan's  essays  above  named  have,  along 
with  others,  been  put  into  a  permanent  form,  it  seems 
fit  that  permanence  should  be  given  to  my  response.  The 
few  pages  occupied  run  as  follows: — 

Forms  of  family  produced  by  descent  in  the  male 
line,  are  habitually  characterized  by  a  law  of  succession 
which  gives  the  sons  of  the  eldest  precedence  over  his 
brothers.  Contrariwise,  forms  of  family  in  which  de- 
scent in  the  female  line  persists,  wholly  or  partially,  be- 
cause paternity  is  unsettled  or  but  partially  settled,  are 
characterized  by  a  law  of  succession  under  which  broth- 
ers takes  precedence  of  sons.  Hence  an  institution  which 
requires  a  younger  brother  to  beget  an  heir  for  an  elder 
brother  who  dies  without  one,  and  which  thus  carries 
to  an  extreme  the  claims  of  sons  versus  the  claims  of 
brothers,  seems  like  a  result  of  a  family  system  charac- 


A  REJOINDER  TO  MR.   McLENNAN.  71 

terized  by  established  descent  in  tlie  male  line.  Mr. 
McLennan,  however,  considers  this  peculiar  institution 
to  be  derived  from  a  form  of  family  in  which,  from  in- 
definiteness  of  paternity,  male  kinship  in  the  descending 
line  is  imperfectly  established.  As  he  interprets  the  mat- 
ter, cause  and  consequence  stand  thus: — '^  On  every 
view,  then,"  he  says,  ^'  the  succession  of  brothers  in 
preference  to  sons  must  be  accepted  as  a  remainder  of 
polyandry ''  (p.  705).  Nevertheless  he  represents,  as  a 
remainder  of  polyandry,  this  Levirate  system,  which 
gives  such  preference  to  sons  that  even  the  nominal 
son  of  the  eldest  brother  excludes  a  younger  brother. 

Though  Mr.  McLennan  thinks  "  it  is  impossible  not 
to  believe  ''  that  this  is  the  origin  of  the  Levirate  (Studies 
in  Ancient  History,  p.  162),  I  have  ventured  to  suggest 
another  possible  interpretation.  I  have  shown  that  where 
women  are  bought  and  sold  as  property,  they  are  also 
inherited  as  property.  I  have  given  six  cases  where 
widows  are  inherited  by  brothers  who  claim  them  as  well 
as  other  belongings  of  the  deceased;  and  have  pointed 
out  that  in  two  of  these  instances,  the  nearest  relation 
^'  had  a  right  "  to  the  widow,  in  the  absence  of  a  brother. 
As  further  showing  how  transfers  of  widows  are  origi- 
nally transfers  of  property,  I  have  given  six  cases  in 
which  sons  inherit  their  father's  wives  (save  their  own 
mothers).*  Here  let  me  add  other  instances  having  like 
implications.  Speaking  of  the  Kakhyens,  Anderson,  in 
his  Mandalay  to  Momien  (pp.  139 — 142),  says,  "  the 
curious  custom  obtains  that  a  widow  becomes  the  wife  of 
the  senior  brother-in-law,  even  though  he  be  already 
married.     And  "Wood  tells  us  of  the  Kirghiz,  that  on  a 

*  Principles  of  Sociology,  i,  G80. 


y^  A  REJOINDER  TO   MR.   McLENNAII. 

husband's  deatli  the  wife  goes  to  his  brother,  and  on  his 
decease  becomes  the  property  of  the  next  of  kin.  We 
have,  then,  multitudinous  proofs  that  the  taking  to  wife 
deceased  brothers'  widows  (not  in  these  cases  associated 
with  polyandry,  but  with  polygyny),  is  part  of  the  suc- 
cession to  property  in  general;  and  this  was  originally 
the  case  among  the  Hebrews.  The  inference  which  Mr. 
McLennan  draws  from  the  ancient  tradition  concerning 
Tamar,  does  not  correspond  with  the  view  which  the  Rab- 
bins held  respecting  the  original  form  of  the  Levir  mar- 
riage. As  shown  by  a  passage  in  Lewis  (Origmes 
Hehroece,  ii.  498),  the  Eabbins  saw  in  Levir  marriage, 
essentially  a  right  of  the  brother,  not  of  the  widow.  At 
first  sight  it  is  not  manifest  how  what  was  originally  a 
right  of  the  brother,  became  transformed  into  a  duty; 
but  I  have  given  some  facts  which  throw  light  upon  the 
transformation.  Even  among  a  people  so  little  advanced 
as  the  Chippewas,  the  claim  of  a  dead  brother's  wife  as 
property,  had  so  far  changed  that  the  assigned  reason  for 
marrying  her  was  the  obligation  to  take  care  of  the 
brother's  children ;  and  I  have  cited  the  case  of  an  Egyp- 
tian who  said  he  married  his  brother's  widow  because  "  he 
considered  it  his  duty  to  provide  for  her  and  her  chil- 
dren." Following  the  clue  given  by  these  cases,  I  have 
suggested  (op.  cit.  p.  692)  that  the  duty  of  raising  up 
seed  to  a  dead  brother  was  originally  the  duty  of  raising 
the  seed  the  dead  brother  had  left,  that  is,  his  children; 
and  that  this  eventually  passed  by  misinterpretation  into 
the  duty  of  preserving  his  line,  not  by  roaring  existing 
children,  but  by  begetting  a  son  in  his  name  when  he  had 
none — a  misinterpretation  prompted  by  that  intense  crav- 
ing to  survive  in  name  through  future  times,  described  in 
Psalm  xlix.  11: — ^' Their  inward  thought  is  that  their 


A  EEJOINDER  TO  MR.  McLENNAN.  Y3 

houses  shall  continue  for  ever.  .  .  .  They  call  their 
lands  after  their  own  names."  When  we  remember  that 
even  now,  estates  are  sometimes  bequeathed  on  condition 
of  adopting  the  name  of  the  testator,  and  so  nominally 
maintaining  the  line,  we  shall  understand  the  motive 
which  exaggerated  the  duty  of  raising  a  brother's  heir 
until  it  became  the  duty  of  raising  an  heir  to  him. 
Should  Mr.  McLennan  contend  that  this  transformation 
of  what  was  once  a  beneficial  right  into  an  injurious  obli- 
gation is  improbable,  then  I  make  two  replies.  The  first 
is,  that  among  many  remarkable  social  transformations, 
there  may  be  named  one  immediately  relating  to  mar- 
riage-customs, w^hich  presents  us  with  a  no  less  complete 
inversion.  Change  from  wife-purchase  to  the  reception 
of  a  dowry  with  a  wdfe,  does  not  seem  a  change  likely  to 
result  by  gradual  transition;  yet  it  did  so  result.  The 
property  given  for  the  bride,  originally  appropriated  en- 
tirely by  the  father,  ceased  in  course  of  time  to  be  wholly 
retained  by  him,  and  he  gave  part  to  his  daughter  for  her 
special  use  after  her  marriage.  What  he  gave  to  her 
grew,  and  what  w^as  paid  for  her  dwindled,  until  eventu- 
ally the  husband's  payment  became  a  symbol,  while  the 
father's  gift  developed  into  a  substantial  dower.  The 
second  reply  is  that  this  transformation  is  less  difficult  to 
understand  than  the  one  alleged  by  Mr.  McLennan.  For 
according  to  him,  the  arrangement  by  which,  in  the  poly- 
andric  family,  an  elder  brother's  death  profits  the  next 
brother  by  devolving  on  him  "  his  property,  authority, 
and  widow,"  is  transformed  into  an  arrangement  by 
which,  in  the  polygynic  or  monogamic  family,  the  next 
brother  loses  by  having  to  take  steps  for  excluding  him- 
self from  the  succession. 

The  flaw^  in  Mr.  McLennan's  argument  appears  to  me 


74  A  REJOINDER  TO  MR.   McLENNAN. 

to  be  this.  lie  tacitly  assumes  that  the  succession  of 
brothers  to  j)ropertj,  instead  of  sons,  always  implies  the 
pre-existence  of  polyandry;  whereas  it  merely  implies 
the  pre-existence  of  descent  in  the  female  line,  wdiich 
may  or  may  not  have  had  polyandry  as  a  concomitant. 
There  are  hosts  of  cases  where  descent  in  the  female  line 
exists,  and  where  there  is  neither  polyandry  now  nor  any 
sign  of  its  past  existence. 

In  the  small  space  available,  I  must  meet  Mr.  McLen- 
nan's  rejoinders  to  my  criticisms  on  his  theory  of  primi- 
tive marriage,  in  the  briefest  manner.  lie  sets  forth  his 
leading  propositions  thus: — 

(1.)  That  "  the  form  [of  capture]  represents  and  is  a 
remainder  of  an  actual  system  of  capturing  women  for 
wives.''  As  showing  that  the  form  does  not  necessarily 
imply  capture  from  foreign  tribes,  I  have  pointed  out 
that  actual  capture,  and  consequently  the  form  of  cap- 
ture, may  originate  within  the  tribe ;  first,  from  the  fight- 
ing of  the  men  with  one  another  for  the  possession  of 
women;  second,  from  the  resistance  of  the  pursued 
women  themselves,  due  to  coyness,  partly  real  and  partly 
assumed;  third,  from  the  accompanying  resistance  of 
sympathizing  women;  and  fourth,  from  the  resistance 
of  parents  who  are  deprived  of  the  services  of  daughters 
by  their  marriages.  I  have  given  numerous  examples  of 
acts  of  capture  having  such  origins,  and  these  Mr.  Mc- 
Lennan passes  over  unnoticed. 

(2.)  That  "  a  practice  of  capturing  women  for  wives 
could  not  have  become  systematic  unless  it  were  devel- 
oped and  sustained  by  some  rule  of  law  or  custom,  which 
made  it  necessary  as  a  means  to  marriage."  This  proposi- 
tion implies  that  some  "  rule  of  law  '^  was  first  estab- 


A  REJOINDER  TO  MR.  McLENNAN.  Y5 

lislied,  in  some  way  unspecified,  and  that  capturing 
women  became  systematic  as  a  consequence;  wliicli  is 
not  a  solution  of  the  problem  but  a  postponement  of  it. 
The  assumed  pre-existence  of  such  a  law  seems  to  me  akin 
to  the  hypothesis  of  a  primitive  "  social  contract." 

(3.)  That  ^'  the  rule  of  law  or  custom  which  had  this 
effect  was  exogamy,  the  law  (previously  unnamed)  which 
declared  it  incest  for  a  man  to  marry  a  woman  of  the  same 
blood  or  stock  with  himself."  On  which  my  comment, 
simply  a  more  specific  form  of  the  last,  is  that  we  are 
thus  required  to  conclude  that  the  notions  of  "  blood  or 
stock  "  and  of  "  incest  "  preceded  the  practice  of  stealing 
women ;  though  this  practice,  found  among  the  very  low- 
est men,  is  a  natural  sequence  of  instincts  which  must 
have  been  in  action  before  the  earliest  social  groups  were 
formed. 

From  these  general  rejoinders  I  pass  to  more  special 
ones. 

Mr.  McLennan  says: — ^^  In  this  inquiry  it  was  the 
existence  of  exogamy  as  an  essential  concomitant  of  cap- 
ture that  concerned  me.  I  neither  investigated  nor  had 
occasion  to  investigate  its  origin."  Considering  that  the 
title  of  Mr.  McLennan's  work  as  originally  published 
was  Primitive  Marriage:  an  Inquiry  into  the  Origin  of 
the  Form  of  Capture  in  Marriage  Ceremonies,  it  seems 
strange  that  he  should  say  he  was  not  concerned  with 
the  explanation  of  exogamy.  To  ascribe  capture  to  exo- 
gamy and  to  assign  no  cause  for  exogamy,  is  to  give  a 
very  inadequate  theory  of  primitive  marriage.  Mr.  Mc- 
Lennan, however,  while  alleging  that  this  problem  did 
not  concern  him,  says  he  threw  out  the  suggestion  that 
"  practice  of  female  infanticide  "  originated  the  correla- 
tive usages  of  capture  and  exogamy.     I  was  quite  un- 


Y6  A  REJOINDER  TO  MR.   M(  LENNAN. 

aware  till  now  that  Mr.  McLennan  laid  so  little  stress 
upon  this  part  of  the  theory.  The  title  he  gives  to  Chap- 
ter VII.  of  his  work — ''  Exogamy:  its  Origin/'  &e., 
seems  to  imply  that  the  explanation  of  it  did  concern 
him,  though  he  now  says  it  did  not.  In  this  chapter  (pp. 
110,  111,  new  edition),  he  assigns  female  infanticide  as 
the  cause,  without  any  warning  that  this  is  to  be  taken 
merely  as  a  suggestion.  And  to  the  growth  of  the  con- 
sequent '^  usage  induced  by  necessity  "  of  stealing  wives, 
he  ascribes  the  "  prejudice  strong  as  a  principle  of  re- 
ligion .  .  .  against  marrying  women  of  their  own 
stock," — ascribes,  that  is,  the  law  of  exogamy.  I  have 
given  several  reasons  for  concluding  that  exogamy  did 
not  arise  from  this  cause;  and,  as  Mr.  McLennan  now 
states  that  what  he  said  about  this  cause  had  "perhaps 
better  have  been  left  unsaid,"  I  presume  that  he  admits 
the  validity  of  these  reasons. 

Mr.  McLennan  makes  a  counter  criticism  on  the  ex- 
planation of  exogamy  given  by  me.  This  explanation  is 
that  in  warlike  tribes,  capturing  of  a  foreign  woman,  im- 
plying conquest  over  enemies,  was  a  mark  of  bravery  and 
therefore  honourable;  that  as  a  tribe  became  predomi- 
nantly warlike,  the  honourableness  of  having  a  foreign 
wife  became  so  relatively  great,  that  taking  a  native 
wife  became  discreditable;  and  that  finally,  in  the  most 
warlike  tribes,  it  became  imperative  that  a  wife  should 
be  of  foreign  blood.  Mr.  McLennan  objects  that  there 
is  a  gulf  "  between  an  act  which  is  discreditable  and  an 
act  which  is  criminal." 

"  To  me,"  he  says,  "  it  seems  simply  not  possible  to 
deduce  from  marriages  with  foreign  women  being 
deemed  ever  so  honourable,  that  marriages  with  native 
women  should  be  branded  as  incestuous — be  deemed 


A  REJOINDER  TO  MR.   McLENNAN.  77 

among  the  most  impious  of  actions,  and  become  capital 
offences." 

My  first  reply  is  that  though  this  "  seems  simply  not 
possible  "  to  Mr.  McLennan,  he  might  have  found  ana- 
logies which  would  show  him  its  possibility.  Is  it  not 
deemed  honourable  to  conquer  in  war?  Does  it  not  be- 
come by  consequence  dishonourable  to  give  way  in  battle 
and  flee  from  the  enemy?  And  are  there  not  cases  in 
which  the  dishonourableness  of  fleeing  from  the  enemy 
became  a  penal  offence,  followed  sometimes  even  by 
death?  My  second  reply  is  that  in  the  primitive  state 
to  which  we  must  go  back  for  the  explanation  of  such 
practices  as  exogamy,  no  such  notion  as  that  of  crime 
exists.  Mr.  McLennan's  objection  implies  the  belief 
that  moral  ideas  antecede  the  earliest  social  state ;  whereas 
they  are  products  of  the  social  state,  developing  only 
as  it  advances.  What  we  call  crimes  are  thought  credi- 
table by  many  uncivilized  men.  Murder  was  no  dis- 
grace to  a  Fijian,  but  a  glory;  and  his  honour  increased 
with  the  number  of  men  he  devoured.  Among  some 
tribes  of  the  Pacific  States,  where  the  stronger  man  takes 
whatever  he  pleases  from  the  weaker,  the  criminality  of 
robbery  is  unrecognised.  And  by  those  many  peoples 
Avhom  I  have  instanced  (Prin.  of  Sociology,  vol.  i,  pp. 
618-619)  as  very  commonly  forming  incestuous  unions, 
incest  is  not  regarded  as  criminal.  How,  then,  can 
there  be  the  impassable  gulf  Mr.  McLennan  supposes 
between  the  disgracefulness  of  marrying  within  the 
tribe  and  the  crime  of  incest,  when,  originally,  incest 
Avas  not  a  crime? 

By  way  of  proof  that  among  rude  races  a  man  does 
not  gain  honour  from  a  captured  wife,  Mr.  McLennan 
gives  some  cases  showing  that  captured  wives  are  not 


78  A  REJOINDER  TO  MR.   McLENNAN. 

tliemsclvcs  licld  in  higher  estimation  than  native  wives, 
but  in  lower.  I  have  neither  said  nor  impUed  anything 
at  variance  with  his  facts.  To  assert  the  honourableness 
of  capturing  is  not  to  assert  the  honourableness  of  being 
captured. 

One  objection  raised  by  Mr.  McLennan  to  the  ex- 
planation I  have  given  has  a  considerable  appearance  of 
validity,  and  some  real  validity;  though  it  is  an  impru- 
dent objection  for  him  to  make,  since  it  tells  against 
his  own  view  more  than  against  mine.  He  points  out 
that  if,  in  an  extremely  warlike  tribe,  wiving  with  for- 
eigners becomes  imperative,  and  marriage  with  native- 
born  women  is  disallowed,  there  arises  the  question, 
what  becomes  of  the  native-born  women;  and  he  says 
they  must  be  "  doomed  to  perpetual  celibacy."  In  an- 
swer, I  may  point  to  the  fact  alleged  by  Mr.  McLen- 
nan himself  (Studies,  &c.,  p.  112),  that  in  some  cases 
all  the  female  children  born  within  the  tribe  are  de- 
stroyed, whence  it  follows  that,  in  these  cases  at  any 
rate,  there  results  no  such  difficulty  as  that  which  he 
alleges.  Further,  I  have  to  repeat  the  objection  made 
by  me  to  his  hypothesis,  that  among  a  cluster  of  tribes 
practising  primitive  exogamy,  as  Mr.  McLennan  de- 
scribes it,  the  female  children  born  Avithin  each  tribe  not 
only  become  useless  to  the  tribe,  because  unmarriage- 
able  by  its  members,  but  the  rearing  of  them  benefits 
and  strengthens  hostile  tribes,  who  alone  can  utilize 
them:  whence  a  motive  to  universal  female  infanticide 
tliroughout  the  tribes.  But  the  truth  to  which  Mr.  Mc- 
Lennan's  objection  points,  I  take  to  be  this;  that,  save 
in  such  extreme  cases  as  the  one  I  have  cited  above, 
exogamy,  under  that  primitive  form  which  implies 
actual  capture  of  women  from  other  tribes,  does  not  be- 


A  REJOINDER  TO  MR.   McLENNAN.  79 

come  absolute;  and  tliat  it  acquires  tlie  character  of  a 
peremptory  law,  only  wlien  the  prevalence  of  women 
counted  as  foreign  by  blood  within  the  tribe,  introduces 
the  secondary  or  derived  form  of  exogamy,  and  makes 
obedience  to  the  peremptory  law  practicable. 

Mr.  McLennan  alleges  that  the  explanation  I  have 
given  could  account  "  only  for  a  limited  practice  of  cap- 
turing women  for  wives,"  and  that  for  this  reason,  ^^  ap- 
parently," I  have  formed  the  opinion  that  exogamy  is 
not  normal  but  exceptional.  I  do  not  know  why  he  says 
this;  since  the  explanation  I  have  given  implies  that 
everywhere,  hostilities  among  tribes  tend  to  produce  ex- 
ogamy in  some  and  endogamy  in  others,  and  that  thus 
the  simultaneous  genesis  of  the  two  is  normal.  If,  how- 
ever, by  the  words  "  that  exogamy,  properly  so-called, 
was  normal,  is  beyond  dispute,"  he  means  that  it  was 
normal  in  the  literal  sense,  as  having  originally  been  the 
rule  and  other  practices  exceptions — if  he  means  again 
to  express  the  belief  he  did  originally,  that  exogamy  has 
^'  been  practised  at  a  certain  stage  among  every  race  of 
mankind  " — if,  by  the  additional  instances  of  it  which 
he  now  gives,  he  means  to  support  this  proposition ;  then 
I  have  simply  to  set  against  it  the  admission  he  makes 
(Studies,  &c.,  p.  116)  that  exogamy  and  endogamy  "  may 
be  equally  archaic,"  and  the  statement  that  "  the  sepa- 
rate endogamous  are  nearly  as  numerous,  and  they  are 
in  some  respects  as  rude,  as  the  separate  exogamous 
tribes  "  (IhicL,  p.  116) — an  admission  and  a  statement 
which  harmonize  perfectly  with  the  hypothesis  I  have  set 
forth,  but  are  incongruous  with  Mr.  McLennan's  own 
hypothesis. 

I  have  reserved  to  the  last  the  most  serious  of  Mr.  Mc- 
Lennan's allegations  against  me.     ^'  That  Mr.  Spencer 


80  A  REJOINDER  TO  MR.   McLENNAN. 

has  failed  to  grasp  the  meaning  of  the  terms  exogamy 
and  endogamy  appears  beyond  dispute/'  he  says.  If  this 
be  true,  the  fault  must  be  either  in  Mr.  McLennan's 
statement  of  his  views,  or  in  my  capacity  for  compre- 
hension; and  I  suppose  that  in  politeness  I  am  bound 
to  regard  the  fault  as  lying  in  me.  I  am  reluctant,  how- 
ever, to  leave  the  reader  without  the  opportunity  of  form- 
ing his  own  judgment  on  this  point;  and  I  therefore 
lay  before  him  the  data  as  briefly  as  consists  with  clear- 
ness. 

The  question  being  how  there  arose  the  contrast  be- 
tween those  tribes  which  married  only  with  women  of 
other  tribes,  or  of  foreign  blood,  and  those  tribes  which 
married  native  women,  the  words  ^^  exogamy  ''  and  '^  en- 
dogamy," introduced  by  Mr.  McLennan,  w^ere  used  by 
me  as  indicating  these  two  systems,  alike  in  their  partial- 
ly-established and  in  their  completely-established  forms. 
Employing  the  words  in  these  unspecialized  senses,  I 
have  referred  to  some  societies  as  partially  exogamous 
or  partially  endogamous,  and  have  said  that  "  exogamy 
and  endogamy  in  many  cases  co-exist:  "  meaning,  there- 
by, that  in  so  far  as  the  men  of  a  tribe  marry  out  of 
the  tribe  the  tribe  is  exogamous,  and  in  so  far  as  they 
marry  within  the  tribe  the  tribe  is  endogamous.  This 
fact  is  cited  by  Mr.  McLennan  as  ''  'proof  that  the  prob- 
lem never  was  comprehended  by  "  me.  Giving  to  the 
words  more  special  meanings  than  are  necessitated  by 
their  literal  significations,  Mr.  McLennan  represents 
them  as  applicable  only  where  marriage  with  women 
of  the  same  stock  is  respectively  forbidden  or  required. 
There  cannot,  consequently,  be  such  things  as  partial 
exogamy  or  endogamy — the  two  are  mutually  exclu- 
sive.   "  The  words,"  he  says,  "  were  not  defined  by  me 


A  REJOINDER  TO  MR.   McLENNAN.  81 

to  denote  practices  at  all,  but  rules  or  laws;  "  and  iie 
says  that  until  there  is  actual  prohibition  of  one  or  other, 
there  is  no  law  of  marriage  at  all,  and  therefore  no  ex- 
ogamy or  endogamy. 

'Now  Mr.  McLennan  may,  of  course,  give  what  de- 
finitions he  pleases  to  words  introduced  by  himself.  But 
I  am  at  loss  to  understand  how  an  evolutionist,  which 
Mr.  McLennan  declares  himself  to  be,  can  ignore  those 
antecedent  stages  that  must  have  been  passed  through 
before  exogamy  and  endogamy  could  become  laws.  Mr. 
McLennan's  familiarity  with  savage  life  must  make  him 
fully  conscious  that  law,  in  our  sense,  is  originally  un- 
known; and  that  that  genesis  of  laws  out  of  customs 
which  advanced  societies  show  us,  is  implied  by  the  state 
of  the  earliest  societies  in  which  no  customs  have  yet 
evolved  into  laws.  •  An  evolutionist  might  be  expected 
to  regard  it  as  a  necessary  implication  that  before  exog- 
amy and  endogamy  became  laws  they  must  have  been 
practices. 

If,  instead  of  saying  that  I  "  never  comprehended  the- 
meanings  of  the  terms  exogamy  or  endogamy,"  Mr. 
McLennan  had  said  that  I  failed  to  comprehend  how  he 
reconciles  his  own  uses  of  them  with  the  meanings  he 
gives,  I  should  have  agreed  with  him.  On  p.  230  in  the 
chapter  headed  "  Conclusion,"  (not,  be  it  observed,  in 
the  chapter  which  he  describes  as  '^  preliminary,"  and 
therefore  only  approximate  in  its  statements)  I  find  the 
following  passage,  in  which  I  have  italicised  the  signi- 
ficant words : 

"  On  the  whole,  the  ae(^ount  which  we  have  given  of 
the  origin  of  exogamy  appears  the  only  one  which  will 
bear  examination.  The  scarcity  of  women  within  the 
group  led  to  a  practice  of  stealing  the  women  of  other 


Vb%t>0^ 


82      PROF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION. 

groiqis,  and  in  time  it  came  to  he  considered  improper, 
because  it  was  unusual  for  a  man  to  marry  a  woman  of 
liis  own  group.'' 

This  passage,  summing  up  tlie  results  of  Mr.  McLen- 
nan's  inquiries,  while  it  tacitly  asserts  that  ''  the  origin 
of  exogamy  "  was  a  chief  problem  (though  Mr.  McLen- 
nan now  says  it  did  not  concern  him),  applies  the  name 
exogamy  to  a  practice  that  had  not  yet  become  a  law. 
Even  now,  on  the  first  page  of  the  above  article,  he  uses 
it  in  the  same  sense  when  he  speaks  of  his  original  sug- 
gestion thus — "  the  practice  of  capture  somehow  intro- 
ducing exogamy,  and  exogamy  thereafter  perpetuating 
and  extending  the  practice  of  capture."  If,  then,  be- 
cause I  have  applied  the  name  exogamy  to  a  growing 
custom  that  had  not  vet  hardened  into  a  law,  I  am 
charged  with  not  understanding  what  exogamy  means, 
I  have  simply  to  reply  that  the  charge  recoils  with  fatal 
effect  on  Mr.  McLennan  himself;  since  he  uses  the  word 
in  the  same  sense. 


PKOF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF 
EVOLUTION. 

It  would  be  undesirable  to  give  permanence  to  the 
subjoined  communication,  published  in  Nature  for  Dec. 
2,  1880,  were  it  not  that  it  serves  as  a  text  for  some  re- 
marks on  scientific  culture  and  the  perverting  influences 
caused  by  limitation  of  it  to  special  sciences. 

Initiated  by  a  criticism  of  First  Principles  in  the 
British  Quarterly  Hevietv  for  October,  1873,  there  grew 


PROF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION.       83 

up  a  controversy  carried  on  partly  in  pamplilets  wliicli 
I  published  and  partly  in  the  columns  of  Nature.  In  the 
course  of  it  Prof.  Tait,  who,  as  a  high  authority,  was 
quoted  against  me,  became  implicated  and  himself  event- 
ually entered  the  lists.  Some  time  afterwards  he  uttered 
from  his  professorial  chair  at  Edinburgh  an  address  con- 
demnatory of  my  views.  It  was  published  in  Nature 
for  l^OY.  25,  1880,  and  drew  from  me  the  reply  here  re- 
produced. 

Usually  my  polemical  writings  have,  I  believe,  been 
considered  as  duly  regardful  of  the  feelings  of  antagon- 
ists. If  an  exception  is  here  furnished,  my  excuse  must 
be  that  I  was,  perhaps  improperly,  influenced  by  the 
example  of  Prof.  Tait,  who,  repeating  a  comparison  he 
made  once  before,  told  his  students  that — "  When  the 
purposely  vague  statements  of  the  materialists  and  ag- 
nostics are  thus  stripped  of  the  tinsel  of  highflown  and 
unintelligible  language,  the  eyes  of  the  thoughtless  who 
have  accepted  them  on  authority  (!)  are  at  last  opened, 
and  they  are  ready  to  exclaim  mth  Titania  '  Methinks  I 
was  enamour'd  of  an  ass'." 

When,  in  Nature  for  July  17th,  18T9,  while  review- 
ing Sir  Edmund  Beckett's  book,  Prof.  Tait  lugged  in 
Mr.  Kirkman's  travesty  of  the  definition  of  Evolution, 
most  readers  probably  failed  to  see  why  he  made  this 
not  very  relevant  quotation.  But  those  who  remembered 
a  controversy  which  occurred  some  years  previously,  pos- 
sibly divined  the  feeling  which  prompted  him  thus  to  go 
out  of  his  way. 


84   PROF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION. 

At  tlic  time  I  said  nothing;  but  having  recently  had 
to  prepare  a  new  edition  of  First  Pinnciples,  and  think- 
ing it  well  to  take  some  notice  of  books,  and  parts  of 
books,  that  have  been  written  in  refutation  of  that  w^ork, 
I  decided  to  deal  also  with  Mr.  Kirkman's  implied  cri- 
ticism, in  which  Prof.  Tait  so  heartily  concurred;  and 
by  way  of  gauging  Prof.  Tait's  judgment  on  this  matter, 
I  thought  it  not  amiss  to  give  some  samples  of  his  judg- 
ment on  matters  falling  within  his  own  department.  To 
make  it  accessible  to  those  possessing  previous  editions 
of  First  Principles,  the  Appendix  containing  these  re- 
plies to  critics  was  published  as  a  pamphlet. 

In  the  inaugural  lecture  of  this  session,  recently  given 
to  his  students,  part  of  which  is  published  in  the  last 
number  of  Nature,  Prof.  Tait  first  of  all  recalls  a  pas- 
sage from  the  preceding  controversy.  From  this  he 
quotes,  or  rather  describes,  a  clause  which,  standing  by 
itself,  appears  sufficiently  absurd;  and  he  marks  the  ab- 
surdity by  a  double  note  of  admiration.  Whether  when 
taken  with  its  context  it  is  absurd,  the  reader  will 
be  able  to  judge  on  reading  the  passage  to  which  it 
belongs. 

In  disproof  of  certain  conclusions  of  mine,  there  had 
been  quoted  against  me  the  dictum  of  Prof.  Tait  con- 
cerning the  laws  of  motion,  w^hich  is  that — ^^  as  the  prop- 
erties of  matter  might  have  been  such  as  to  render  a 
totally  different  set  of  laws  axiomatic,  these  laws  must 
be  considered  as  resting  on  convictions  drawn  from  ob- 
servation and  experiment  and  not  on  intuitive  percep- 
tion." E'ot  urging  minor  objections  to  this  dictum,  I 
went  on  to  say: — "  It  will  suffice  if  I  examine  the  nature 
of  this  proposition  that  ^  the  properties  of  matter  might 
have  teen '  other  than  they  are.    Does  it  express  an  ex- 


PROF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FOEMdLA  OF  EVOLUTION.   85 

perimentally-ascertained  truth?  If  so,  I  invite  Prof. 
Tait  to  describe  the  experiments?  Is  it  an  intuition?  If 
so,  then  along  with  doubt  of  an  intuitive  belief  concern- 
ing things  as  they  are,  there  goes  confidence  in  an  in- 
tuitive belief  concerning  things  as  they  are  not.  Is  it  an 
hypothesis?  If  so,  the  implication  is  that  a  cognition  of 
which  the  negation  is  inconceivable  (for  an  axiom  is 
such)  may  be  discredited  by  inference  from  that  which 
is  not  a  cognition  at  all,  but  simply  a  supposition.  .  .  . 
I  shall  take  it  as  unquestionable  that  nothing  concluded 
can  have  a  warrant  higher  than  that  from  which  it  is 
concluded,  though  it  may  have  a  lower,  ^ow  the  ele- 
ments of  the  proposition  before  us  are  these : — As  ^  the 
properties  of  matter  might  have  been  such  as  to  render  a 
totally  different  set  of  laws  axiomatic  '  [therefore']  ^  these 
laws  [now  in  force]  must  *fce  considered  as  resting  .  .  . 
not  on  intuitive  perception:  '  that  is,  the  intuitions  in 
which  these  laws  are  recognised,  must  not  be  held  au- 
thoritative. Here  the  cognition  posited  as  premiss,  is 
that  the  properties  of  matter  might  have  been  other  than 
they  are;  and  the  conclusion  is  that  our  intuitions  rela- 
tive to  existing  properties  are  uncertain.  Hence,  if  this 
conclusion  is  valid,  it  is  valid  because  the  cognition  or 
intuition  respecting  what  might  have  been,  is  more  trust- 
worthy than  the  cognition  or  intuition  respecting  what 
is!'' 

From  wdiich  it  is  manifest  that,  when  asking  (of 
course  ironically)  whether  this  alleged  truth  was  an  ex- 
perimentally-ascertained one,  my  purpose  was  partly  to 
enumerate  and  test  all  imaginable  suppositions  respect- 
ing the  nature  of  Prof.  Tait's  proposition,  and  partly  to 
show  that  he  had  affirmed  something  concerning  the 
properties  of  matter  which  cannot  be  experimentally 


86   PROF.  TAIT  OX  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION. 

verilic'd,  and  therefore  wliicli,  by  his  own  showing,  he 
has  no  right  to  affirm. 

The  first  example  which,  in  my  recent  replies  to 
criticisms,  I  have  given  of  Prof.  Tait's  way  of  thinking, 
is  disclosed  by  a  comparison  of  his  views  concerning  our 
knowledge  of  the  universe  as  visible  to  us,  and  our 
knowledge  of  an  alleged  invisible  universe.  This  com- 
parison shows  that: — 

^^  He  thinks  that  while  no  validity  can  be  claimed 
for  our  judgments  respecting  perceived  forces,  save  as 
experimentally  justified,  some  validity  can  be  claimed 
for  our  judgments  respecting  unperceived  forces,  where 
no  experimental  justification  is  possible." 

Part  of  Prof.  Tait's  answer  is  that  "  the  theory  there 
developed  [in  the  Unseen  Universe']  w^as  not  put  for- 
ward as  probable,  its  purpose  w^as  attained  when  it  was 
shown  to  be  conceivable."  ^*  To  which  I  rejoin  that 
whereas  Prof.  Tait  said  he  found  in  this  theory  a  sup- 
port for  certain  theological  beliefs,  he  now  confesses  that 
he  found  none;  for  if  no  probability  is  alleged,  no  sup- 
port can  be  derived.  The  other  part  of  his  answer  con- 
cerns the  main  issue.  After  pointing  out  that  the  argu- 
ment of  this  work,  "  carried  on  in  pursuance  of  physical 
laws  established  by  converse  with  the  universe  we  know, 
extends  them  to  the  universe  we  do  not  know,"  I  had 
urged  that  if  we  have  "  no  warrant  for  asserting  a  phys- 
ical axiom  save  as  a  generalisation  of  results  of  experi- 
ments— if,  consequently,  where  no  observation  or  experi- 
ment is  possible,  reasoning  after  physical  methods  can 
have  no  place;  then  there  can  be  no  basis  for  any  con- 
clusion respecting  the  physical  relations  of  the  seen  and 
the  unseen  universes,"  "  since,  by  the  definition  of  it, 
one  term  of  the  relation  is  absent."     Prof.  Tait's  ex- 


PROP.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION.       87 

planation  is  extremely  startling.  AVlien  following  llie 
discussion  in  tlie  Unseen  Universe,  tlirougliont  which 
the  law  of  the  Conservation  of  Energy  and  the  Principle 
of  Continuity  are  extended  from  the  tangible  and  visible 
matter  and  motion  around  us  to  an  unknown  form  of 
existence  with  wdiich  they  are  suj)posed  to  be  connected, 
readers  little  thought  that  Prof.  Tait  meant  by  this  un- 
known form  of  existence  his  own  mind.  Yet  this  is  all 
that  he  now  names  as  the  missing  term  of  the  relation 
between  the  seen  universe  and  the  unseen  universe. 

The  second  sample  wdiich  I  gave  of  Prof.  Tait's  view^s 
on  matters  pertaining  to  his  own  subject,  concerned  the 
nature  of  inertia,  wdiich  he  describes  by  implication  as 
a  positive  force.  Here  I  quoted  Prof.  Clerk  Maxwell. 
To  repeat  his  criticism  in  full  would  cause  me  to  tres- 
pass on  the  pages  of  Nature  even  more  unduly  than  I 
must  do.  If,  however,  any  reader  turns  to  Nature,  July 
3rd,  1879,  and  reads  the  passage  in  question,  he  wdll  be 
able  to  judge  whether  it  is,  or  is  not,  a  joke,  and  if  a 
joke,  at  whose  expense.  Meanwhile,  the  essential  ques- 
tion remains.  Prof.  Tait  says  that  matter  has  '^  an  in- 
nate power  of  resisting  external  influences."  I,  con- 
trariwise, say  that  the  assertion  of  such  a  power  is  at 
variance  wdth  established  physical  principles. 

One  further  illustration  of  Prof.  Tait's  way  of  think- 
ing was  added.  Quoting  from  a  lecture  given  by  him  at 
Glasgow,  for  the  purpose  of  dispelling  "  the  widespread 
ignorance  as  to  some  of  the  most  important  elementary 
principles  of  physics,"  I  compared  two  different  defini- 
tions of  force  it  contained.  In  a  passage  from  I^ewton, 
emphatically  approved  by  Prof.  Tait,  force  is  implied 
to  be  that  which  changes  the  state  of  a  body,  or,  in  mod- 
ern language,  does  w^drk  upon  it.     Later  on  in  the  lee- 


88      PROF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION. 

turc,  Prof.  Tait  says — ^'  force  is  the  rate  at  wliicli  an 
agent  does  work  per  unit  of  length."  I  contended  that 
these  definitions  are  irreconcilable  with  one  another; 
and  I  do  not  see  that  Prof.  Tait  has  done  anything  to 
reconcile  them.  True,  he  has  given  us  some  mathe- 
matics, by  w^hich  he  considers  the  reconciliation  to  be 
effected;  and,  possibly,  some  readers,  awed  by  his  equa- 
tions, and  forgetting  that  in  symbolic  operations,  carried 
on  no  matter  how  rigourously,  the  worth  of  what  comes 
out  depends  wdiolly  on  wdiat  is  put  in,  will  suppose  that 
Prof.  Tait  must  be  right.  If,  however,  his  mathematics 
prove  that  while  force  is  an  agent  which  does  work,  it  is 
also  the  rate  at  which  an  agent  does  work,  then  I  say — 
so  much  the  worse  for  his  mathematics. 

From  these  several  tests  of  Prof.  Tait's  judgment, 
in  respect  to  which  I  fail  to  see  that  he  has  disposed  of 
my  allegations,  I  pass  now  to  his  implied  judgment  on 
the  formula,  or  definition,  of  Evolution.  And  here  I 
have,  first  to  ask  him  some  questions.  He  says  that  be- 
cause he  has  used  the  word  "  definition ''  instead  of 
"  formula,"  he  has  incurred  my  ^'  sore  displeasure  and 
grave  censure."  In  what  place  have  I  expressed  or  im- 
plied displeasure  or  censure  in  relation  to  this  substitu- 
tion of  terms?  Alleging  that  I  have  an  obvious  motive 
for  calling  it  a  "  formula,"  he  says  I  am  "  indignant  at 
its  being  called  a  definition.''^  I  wish  to  see  the  words 
in  w^hicli  I  have  expressed  my  indignation;  and  shall  be 
glad  if  Prof.  Tait  will  quote  them.  He  says — "  It  seems 
I  should  have  called  him  the  discoverer  of  the  formula!  " 
instead  of  "  the  inventor  of  the  definition."  Will  he 
oblige  me  by  pointing  out  where  I  have  used  either  the 
one  phrase  or  the  other?  These  assertions  of  Prof.  Tait 
are  to  me  utterly  incomprehensible.     I  have  nowhere 


PROP.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION.       89 

eitlicr  said  or  implied  any  of  tlie  things  wliicli  lie  here 
specifies.  So  far  am  I  from  consciously  preferring  one 
of  these  words  to  the  other,  that,  until  I  read  this  pas- 
sage in  Prof.  Tait's  lecture,  I  did  not  even  know  that 
I  was  in  the  habit  of  saying  ^'  formula  "  rather  than 
"  definition."  The  whole  of  these  statements  are  fic- 
tions, pure  and  absolute. 

My  intentional  use  of  the  one  word  rather  than  the 
other,  is  alleged  by  him  a  propos  of  an  incidental  com- 
parison I  have  made.  To  a  critic  who  had  said  that  the 
formula  or  definition  of  Evolution  "  seems  at  best  rather 
the  blank  form  for  a  universe  than  anything  correspond- 
ing to  the  actual  world  about  us,"  I  had  replied  that  it 
might  similarly  be  '^  remarked  that  the  formula — ^  bodies 
attract  one  another  directly  as  their  masses  and  inversely 
as  the  squares  of  their  distances,'  w^as  at  best  but  a  blank 
form  for  solar  systems  and  sidereal  clusters."  Where- 
upon Prof.  Tait  assumes  that  I  put  the  "  Formula  of 
Evolution  alongside  of  the  Law  of  Gravitation,"  in  re- 
spect to  the  definiteness  of  the  previsions  they  severally 
enable  us  to  make;  and  he  proceeds  to  twit  me  with  in- 
ability to  predict  what  will  be  the  condition  of  Europe 
four  years  hence,  as  astronomers  ^'  predict  the  positions 
of  known  celestial  bodies  four  years  beforehand."  Here 
we  have  another  example  of  Prof.  Tait's  peculiarity  of 
thought.  Because  two  abstract  generalisations  are  com- 
pared as  both  being  utterly  unlike  the  groups  of  con- 
crete facts  interpreted  by  them,  therefore  they  are  com- 
pared in  respect  to  their  other  characters. 

But  now  I  am  not  unwilling  to  deal  with  the  contrast 

Prof.  Tait  draws;  and  am  prepared  to  show  that  when 

the  conditions  are  analogous,  the  contrast  disappears.    It 

seems  strange  that  I  should  have  to  point  out  to  a  scien- 

7 


00   PROF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION. 

tific  man  in  his  position,  that  an  ancged  kw  may  be 
perfectly  true,  and  that  yet,  where  the  elements  of  a 
problem  to  be  dealt  with  under  it  are  numerous,  no  spe- 
cific deduction  can  be  drawn.  Does  not  Prof.  Tait  from 
time  to  time  teach  his  students  that  in  proportion  as  the 
number  of  factors  concerned  in  the  production  of  any 
phenomenon  becomes  great,  and  also  in  proportion  as 
those  factors  admit  of  less  exact  measurement,  any  pre- 
diction made  concerning  the  phenomenon  becomes  less 
definite;  and  that  where  the  factors  are  multitudinous 
and  not  measurable,  nothing  but  some  general  result  can 
be  foreseen,  and  often  not  even  that  ?  Prof.  Tait  ignores 
the  fact  that  the  positions  of  planets  and  satellites  admit 
of  definite  prevision,  only  because  the  forces  which  ap- 
preciably affect  them  are  few;  and  he  ignores  the  fact 
that  where  further  such  forces,  not  easily  measured,  come 
into  play,  the  previsions  are  imperfect  and  often  wholly 
wrong,  as  in  the  case  of  comets;  and  he  ignores  the  fact 
that  where  the  number  of  bodies  affecting  one  another 
by  mutual  gravitation  is  great,  no  definite  prevision  of 
their  positions  is  possible.  If  Prof.  Tait  were  living  in 
one  of  the  globular  star-clusters,  does  he  think  that  after 
observations  duly  taken,  calculations  based  on  the  law 
of  gravitation  would  enable  him  to  predict  the  positions 
of  the  component  stars  four  years  hence?  By  an  intel- 
ligence immeasurably  transcending  the  human,  with  a 
mathematics  to  match,  such  prevision  would  doubtless 
be  possible;  but  considered  from  the  human  standpoint, 
the  law  of  gravitation  even  when  uncomplicated  by  other 
laws,  can  yield  under  such  conditions  only  general  and 
not  special  results.  And  if  Prof.  Tait  will  deign  to  look 
into  First  PririciplcSy  which  he  apparently  prides  him- 
self on  not  having  done,  he  will  there  find  a  sufficient 


PROP.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION.   01 

number  of  illustrations  showing  that  not  only  orders 
of  changes,  but  even  social  changes,  are  predictable  in 
respect  to  their  general,  if  not  in  respect  to  their  special, 
characters. 

There  remains  only  to  notice  the  opinion  which  Prof. 
Tait  seems  still  to  hold,  that  the  verbal  transformation 
which  Mr.  Kirkman  has  made  in  the  formula  or  defini- 
tion of  Evolution,  suffices  to  show  its  hollowness.  Here 
I  may  be  excused  for  repeating  what  I  have  already  said 
elsewhere,  namely,  that  ''  We  may  conveniently  observe 
the  nature  of  Mr.  Kirkman's  belief,  by  listening  to  an 
imaginary  addition  to  that  address  before  the  Literary 
and  Philosophical  Society  of  Liverpool,  in  which  he  first 
set  forth  the  leading  ideas  of  his  volume;  and  we  may 
fitly,  in  this  imaginary  addition,  adopt  the  manner  in 
which  he  delights. 

"  Observe,  gentlemen,"  we  may  suppose  him  saying, 
"  I  have  here  the  yolk  of  an  egg.  The  evolutionists, 
using  their  jargon,  say  that  one  of  its  characters  is 
*  homogeneity ' ;  and  if  you  do  not  examine  your 
thoughts,  perhaps  you  may  think  that  the  word  conveys 
some  idea.  But  now  if  I  translate  it  into  plain  English, 
and  say  that  one  of  the  characters  of  this  yolk  is  '  all- 
alikeness,'  you  at  once  perceive  how  nonsensical  is  their 
statement.  You  see  that  the  substance  of  the  yolk  is  not 
all-alike,  and  that  therefore  all-alikeness  cannot  be  one 
of  its  attributes.  Similarly  with  the  other  pretentious 
term  ^  heterogeneity,'  which,  according  to  them,  de- 
scribes the  state  things  are  brought  to  by  what  they 
call  evolution.  It  is  mere  empty  sound,  as  is  manifest 
if  I  do  but  transform  it,  as  I  did  the  other,  and  say  in- 
stead '  not-all-alikeness.'  Eor  on  showing  you  this  chick 
into  which  the  yolk  of  the  egg  turns,  you  will  see  that 


92   PROF.  TAIT  OX  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION. 

'  iiot-all-alikcucss  '  is  a  character  wliicli  cannot  be  claimed 
far  it.  How  can  any  one  say  that  the  parts  of  the  chick 
are  not-all-alike?  Again,  in  their  blatant  language  we 
are  told  that  evolution  is  carried  on  by  continuous  '  dif- 
ferentiations ' ;  and  they  would  have  us  believe  that  this 
word  expresses  some  fact.  But  if  we  put  instead  of  it 
^  somethingelseifications '  the  delusion  they  try  to  prac- 
tise on  us  becomes  clear.  How  can  they  say  that  while 
the  parts  have  been  forming  themselves  the  heart  has 
been  becoming  something  else  than  the  stomach,  and 
the  leg  something  else  than  the  wing,  and  the  head  some- 
thing else  than  the  tail?  The  like  manifestly  happens 
when  for  ^  integrations  '  we  read  ^  sticktogetherations  ' ; 
what  sense  the  term  might  seem  to  have,  becomes  obvious 
nonsense  when  the  substituted  word  is  used.  For  no- 
body dares  assert  that  the  parts  of  the  chick  stick  to- 
gether any  more  than  do  the  parts  of  the  yolk.  I  need 
hardly  show  you  that  now  when  I  take  a  portion  of  the 
yolk  between  my  fingers  and  pull,  and  now  when  I  take 
any  part  of  the  chick,  as  the  leg,  and  pull,  the  first  re- 
sists just  as  much  as  the  last — the  last  does  not  stick  to- 
gether any  more  than  the  first;  so  that  there  has  been 
no  progress  in  ^  sticktogetherations.'  And  thus,  gentle- 
men, you  perceive  that  these  big  words  which,  to  the 
disgrace  of  the  Eoyal  Society,  appear  even  in  papers 
published  by  it,  are  mere  empty  bladders  which  these 
would-be  philosophers  use  to  buoy  up  their  ridiculous 
doctrines." 

But  though  it  is  here,  I  think,  made  apparent  enough 
that  even  when  disguised  in  Mr.  Kirkman's  gTotesque 
words,  the  definition  of  Evolution  continues  truly  to  ex- 
press the  facts.  Prof.  Tait  shows  no  sign  of  changing 
his  original  opinion  that  INfr.  Kirkman  has  made  "  an 


PROF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION.   93 

exquisite  translation  ''  of  the  definition,  ^ay,  so  charmed 
does  lie  appear  to  be  with  Mr.  Kirkman's  feats  of  this 
nature,  that  he  gives  us  another  of  them.  One  of  two 
conclusions  must  be  drawn.  Prof.  Tait  either  thinks 
that  fallacies  are  disclosed  by  the  aid  of  these  cacophon- 
ous long  words,  or  else  the  clatter  of  curious  syllabic 
compounds  greatly  excites  his  sense  of  humour.  In  the 
last  case  we  may  infer  that  had  he  been  one  of  that 
"  Twelfth  Mght  "  party  in  wdiich  the  Clown  exclaims — 
"  I  did  impeticos  thy  gratillity,"  he  would  have  joined 
in  Sir  Andrew  Aguecheek's  applause. 

In  his  essay  on  "  The  Study  of  Mathematics  as  an 
Exercise  of  the  Mind,"  Sir  "William  Hamilton  insisted 
with  great  force  upon  the  unfitness  of  mathematically- 
disciplined  men  for  contingent  reasoning:  giving  proof 
that  "  a  too  exclusive  study  of  these  sciences  is,  abso- 
lutely, to  disqualify  the  mind  for  observation  and  com- 
mon reasoning. '^  In  support  of  this  thesis  he  marshalled 
numerous  high  authorities,  including,  along  with  vari- 
ous distinguished  non-mathematicians,  the  mathema- 
ticians themselves — Pascal,  Descartes,  D'iVlembert,  and 
others.  To  earlier  examples  of  mental  defects  produced, 
which  might  be  given,  a  conspicuous  addition  has  been 
supplied  recently:  that  furnished  by  M.  Michel  Chasles, 
who,  in  the  matter  of  the  N^ewton-Pascal  forgeries,  sur- 
prised both  the  scientific  world  and  the  world  at  large 
by  his  extreme  inability  to  judge  of  evidence  and  detect 
imposture.  Personal  experience  has  yielded  verification. 
Observation  of  one  much  devoted  to  geometry  forced  on 


0^   TROF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION". 

nie  the  conclusion  that  a  prevailing  fault  in  general  rea- 
soning had  been  produced  in  him.  Such  a  result  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at.  The  mathematician  does  not  deal 
with  many  indefinite  data,  but  with  a  few  definite  ones. 
In  his  operations  there  occurs  no  collecting  of  evidence: 
his  successive  inferences  are  inevitable  implications. 
Balancing  of  probabilities  is  never  thought  of:  his  de- 
ductions are  necessary  and  unqualified.  The  mode  of 
thought  generated  affects  his  reasoning  about  other 
matters  than  the  mathematical  and  the  mathematico- 
physical.  Assuming  simplicity  and  definiteness  of  data 
where  these  do  not  exist,  he  draws  conclusions  which, 
as  being  drawn  mathematically,  he  thinks  unquestion- 
able. A  distinguished  mathematician  and  physicist  now 
living  has  more  than  once  illustrated  this  truth. 

A  further  mental  effect  is  produced.  The  habit  of 
dealing  with  conclusions  from  data  that  are  few  and 
exact,  appears  to  entail  an  inability  to  recognize  the  con- 
clusions drawn  from  inexact  and  complex  data  as  con- 
stituting parts  of  scientific  knowledge.  In  the  minds  of 
those  thus  characterized  science  exists  as  a  multitude 
of  separate  demonstrated  propositions;  and  it  never 
occurs  to  them  that  in  the  order  of  Mature  these  must 
be  parts  of  a  whole.  The  merging  of  them  in  some  uni- 
versal truth  is  an  idea  so  alien  that  the  very  terms  re- 
quired seem  meaningless,  and  the  man  who  uses  them  a 
charlatan.  If,  referring  to  an  architect,  a  mason  should 
say — "  lie  a  builder!  AVhy  he  never  dressed  a  stone  in 
his  life!  ''  he  would  betray  a  feeling  not  altogether  dis- 


PROF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION.   95 

similar.  Already  in  the  appendix  to  First  Principles 
above  referred  to,  I  have  pointed  out  how  some  men  of 
letters  and  some  mathematicians,  alike  in  having  minds 
insufficiently  supplied  with  the  materials  out  of  which 
the  conception  of  Evolution  is  to  be  framed,  regard  the 
definition  of  Evolution  as  a  combination  of  empty  words : 
Prof.  Tait  and  Mr.  Kirkman  being  named  in  illustra- 
tion. And  I  ought  to  have  there  added  the  illustration 
furnished  by  a  Senior  Wrangler  who  reviewed  First 
Principles  in  the  British  Quarterly  Review  for  October 
1873,  and  with  whom  I  subsequently  carried  on  a  con- 
troversy. 

Since  then  two  further  illustrations  have  come  to  my 
knowledge.  One  is  contained  in  the  Life  of  the  late  Dr. 
Romanes.  Writing  to  Mr.  Darwin  in  1880,  and  return- 
ing some  letters,  he  says: — 

"  The  latter  convey  exactly  the  criticism  that  I 
should  have  expected  from — ,  for  while  writing  my 
essay  on  Theism  I  had  several  conversations  with  him 
upon  the  subject  of  Spencer's  writings,  and  so  know 
exactly  what  he  thinks  of  them.  But  in  none  of  these 
conversations  could  I  get  at  anything  more  definite  than 
is  conveyed  by  the  returned  letters.  In  no  point  of  any 
importance  did  he  make  it  clear  to  me  that  Spencer  was 
wrong,  and  the  only  result  of  our  conversation  was  to 
show  me  that  in  — 's  opinion  it  was  only  my  ignorance 
of  mathematics  that  prevented  me  from  seeing  that 
Mr.  Spencer  is  merely  a  ^  word  philosopher '...''  (pp. 
95—6). 

The  other  illustration,  of  somewhat  earlier  date,  will 
be  found  in  the  Edinhurgli  Review  for  January  1884. 


96   PROF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION. 

The  writer  of  it  was  among  tlie  wranglers  of  liis  year. 
His  characterization  of  First  Principles  runs  as  fol- 
lows:— ^' This  is  nothing  but  a  pliilosopJnj  of  epithets 
and  pliraseSj  introduced  and  carried  on  with  an  un- 
rivalled solemnity  and  affection  of  precision  of  style, 
concealing  the  loosest  reasoning  and  the  haziest  indefi- 
niteness."  * 

This  instancing  of  five  men,  occupied  with  mathe- 
matics and  mathematical  physics,  in  whose  minds  the 
formula  of  Evolution  raised  no  answering  conception, 
may  be  thought  to  imply  an  undervaluation,  if  not  even 
a  reprobation,  of  mathematics  and  physics  as  subjects 
of  study.  ]^o  inference  could  be  more  erroneous.  To 
guard  against  it,  however,  let  me  point  out  that  while 
exclusive  devotion  to  the  exact  sciences  produces  certain 
defects  of  thought,  exclusive  devotion  to  the  inexact 
sciences  produces  defects  of  thought  of  an  opposite  kind. 
These  last  present  phenomena  under  such  complex  forms, 
W'ith  interdependencies  so  involved,  that  necessities  of 
relation  cannot  in  most  cases  be  said  to  exist;  and  the 
many  causes  simultaneously  in  operation  so  obscure  the 
action  of  any  one,  as  in  large  measure  to  exclude  the 
idea  of  definite  causation.     Among  plants  a  few  funda- 


*  Some  amusement  was  caused  by  the  mode  in  which  I  dealt  with 
this  sweeping  condgmnation.  It  appeared  just  before  the  sixth  edi- 
tion of  First  Principles  was  issued.  In  pursuance  of  my  directions, 
Messrs.  Williams  and  Norgate,  when  sending  out  advertisements  of 
this  new  edition,  appended  to  each  of  them  the  above  sentences,  as 
expressing  the  opinion  of  the  Edinburgh  Revieiv.  The  advertise- 
ments were  published  in  all  the  le^iding  daily  and  weekly  papers, 


PROF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION.   97 

mental  relations  may  be  fairly  alleged,  as  between  the 
monocotyledonous  germination  and  the  endogenous 
mode  of  growth,  or  between  the  dicotyledonous  germina- 
tion and  the  exogenous  mode  of  growth.  But  relations 
among  multitudinous  combined  traits,  such  as  kind  of 
fructification  and  possession  of  thorns,  or  hard-shelled 
nuts  and  shapes  of  leaves,  cannot  be  shown  to  have  any 
causal  characters.  So  with  animals.  Though  it  is  a 
trait  of  creatures  having  mammae  to  have  seven  cervical 
vertebrae,  yet  for  this  correlation  of  structures  no  neces- 
sity can  be  alleged;  as  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  though 
at  one  time  the  connexion  was  supposed  to  be  universal, 
there  have  of  late  years  been  discovered  mammals  hav- 
ing eight  vertebrae  in  the  neck.  Hence,  those  who  ex- 
clusively study  animals  and  plants,  being  perpetually 
impressed  by  connexions  of  facts  which  are  either  for- 
tuitous or  for  which  no  reason  can  be  assigned,  are  not 
daily  habituated  to  the  perception  of  causal  relations, 
and  such  generalizations  as  they  can  establish  come  to 
be  regarded  as  empirical.  A  purely  inductive  habit  is 
encouraged  and  a  deductive  habit  discouraged.  The 
resulting  mental  tendencies  operate  in  other  regions  of 
thought,  so  that  everywhere  necessity  of  relation  is 
doubted,  and  the  idea  of  inevitable  consequence  meets 
with  no  acceptance.  Many  times  in  a  distinguished  biol- 
ogist I  have  observed  the  effect  thus  described.  Present 
him  with  a  great  accumulation  of  evidence  supporting 
a  certain  conclusion,  and  this  conclusion,  coming  before 
him  under  the  form  of  an  induction,  he  would  entertain 


OS       PrvOF.  TAIT  ON  THE  FORMULA  OF  EVOLUTION. 

and  seem  ready  to  accept.  After  a  time  point  out  that 
this  conclusion  might  be  reached  deductively  from 
known  necessary  truths,  and  immediately  his  scepticism 
Avas  aroused.  Forgetting  the  inductive  basis  originally 
assigned,  the  deductive  proof  excited  such  repugnance 
as  tended  to  make  him  reject  what  he  before  admitted. 
The  habit  of  mind  encouraged  by  dealing  exclusively 
with  empirical  generalizations  produced  an  abnormal 
distrust  of  all  others. 

Is  it  then  that  ability  to  form  balanced  judgments 
about  things  at  large  demands  discipline  in  all  the  sci- 
ences? The  answer  is  Yes  and  No.  And  here  presents 
itself  a  question  often  raised  and  never  settled — Is  it 
better  to  have  an  extensive  or  fairly  complete  knowledge 
of  a  single  science,  or  a  general  acquaintance  with  all 
the  sciences?  The  tacit  implication  is  that  the  choice 
is  between  restriction  with  accuracy  and  breadth  with 
superficiality.  But  this  is  not  true.  The  error  lies  in 
supposing  that  a  general  knowledge  is  the  same  thing 
as  a  superficial  knowledge.  There  may  be  full  compre- 
hension of  the  essentials  of  a  science  without  familiarity 
with  its  details — a  clear  understanding  of  those  funda- 
mental truths  from  which  all  the  multitudinous  minor 
truths  constituting  it  are  deductions.  Take  the  case  of 
mechanics.  In  a  moderate  time  a  student  may  master 
its  cardinal  ideas — the  composition  and  resolution  of 
forces;  the  general  principle  of  inertia;  the  laws  of  mo- 
tion, including  acceleration  and  retardation  and  the 
various  compoundings  of  motions,  stiidied  in  connexion 


ABILITY  VERSUS  INFORMATION.  99 

witli  the  conservation  of  energy;  the  doctrine  of  stable 
and  unstable  equilibrium,  with  the  relations  of  statics 
and  dynamics;  and  may  add  to  these  the  theorems  con- 
cerning the  mechanical  powers.  The  abstract  truths 
comprehended  under  these  heads  having  been  severally 
brought  home  in  connexion  with  some  concrete  applica- 
tions, an  adequate  grasp  of  mechanical  principles  is  ob- 
tained, which,  though  only  general,  is  not  superficial; 
and  which  gives  the  power  intelligently  to  appreciate 
the  higher  and  more  complex  conclusions  of  the  science 
when  upon  occasion  they  are  presented.  Kindred  courses 
may  similarly  bring  within  the  student's  clear  compre- 
hension the  fundamentals  of  all  the  sciences;  and  he  will 
then  be  in  a  condition  for  devoting  himself  efficiently  to 
the  science  he  prefers.  Alike  for  the  sake  of  knowledge 
and  for  the  sake  of  discipline  the  ideal  course  of  culture 
is — the  ground  truths  of  each  science  joined  with  mas- 
tery of  one. 


ABILITY  VERSUS  IKFOEMATIOK 

Among  my  papers  I  find  in  print  the  following  letter 
written  to  Dr.  (now  Sir)  Henry  Acland.  Under  what 
circumstances  it  was  written  I  do  not  know;  nor  can  I 
remember  in  what  shape  it  was  published.  Probably  it 
formed  part  of  some  collection  of  opinions  respecting 
University  Education,  issued  in  1882:  the  date  of  it 
being  March  4  of  that  year.     I  give  it  a  place  here  as 


100  ABILITY  VERSUS  INFORMATION. 

expressing  a  strong  conviction  of  mine  concerning  the 
quality  of  ordinary  intellectual  culture. 

I  am  just  now  r.l lowing  myself,  very  imprudently, 
to  be  drawn  away  from  my  usual  line  of  work,  and  am' 
therefore  the  less  able  to  consider  at  length  the  matter 
to  which  your  letter  of  the  2nd  draws  my  attention. 
Moreover,  I  feel  that  even  had  I  any  amount  of  energy 
to  spare,  my  opinion  upon  the  details  of  the  proposed 
forms  of  examination  would  not  be  of  much  value. 

There  is  only  one  general  criticism  which  I  feel  in- 
clined to  make  upon  the  examination  papers  you  have 
forwarded — a  criticism  to  which  I  think  they  are  open 
in  common  with  examination  papers  at  large.  They  are 
drawn  up  with  the  exclusive  view  of  testing  acquisition 
rather  than  power.  I  hold  that  the  more  important  thing 
to  be  ascertained  by  an  examination  is  not  the  quantity 
of  knowledge  which  a  man  has  taken  in  and  is  able  to 
pour  out  again,  but  the  ability  he  shows  to  use  the 
knowledge  he  has  acquired;  and  I  think  that  examina- 
tions of  all  kinds  are  habitually  faulty,  inasmuch  as  they 
use  the  first  test  rather  than  the  last,  by  which  to  judge 
of  superiority. 

I  hold  that  in  every  examination  there  should  be  a 
certain  set  of  questions  devised  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining what  capacity  for  original  thinking  the  candi- 
date has — questions  to  which  he  will  find  no  answer  in 
the  books  that  he  has  read,  but  to  which  answers  must 
be  elaborated  by  himself  from  reflection  upon  the  knowl- 
edge he  has  acquired.  To  give  an  example  of  what  I 
mean,  there  might  be  put  to  biological  students  in  the 
physiological  part  of  their  examination  such  a  question 
as — What  are  the  other  characteristics  of  the  Aloe  which 


BOOK-DISTRIBUTION.  101 

are  related  to  the  long  delay  in  its  flowering,  and  wliicli 
make  this  delay  profitable  to  the  species?  If  some  few 
questions  of  this  kind,  for  which  the  student  was  wholly 
unprepared,  were  included  in  every  examination,  they 
would  serve  to  single  out  the  few  men  who  were  some- 
thing more  than  mere  passive  recipients  of  book  knowl- 
edge and  professorial  teaching. 


BOOK-DISTEIBUTIOK 

"When  the  late  Mr.  Fawcett  w^as  Postmaster-General 
I  wrote  to  him  a  letter  suggesting  a  system  which  would, 
it  seemed  to  me,  greatly  facilitate  (and  therefore 
cheapen)  the  process  of  conveying  books  from  publish- 
ers to  readers.  Nothing  came  of  my  proposal:  the  ex- 
isting facilities  were  held  sufficient.  I  think  it  well, 
however,  to  give  permanence  to  the  suggestion,  hoping 
that  some  future  Postmaster-General  may  take  a  differ- 
ent view.     The  date  of  the  letter  was  June  5,  1882. 

Thanks  for  your  note  some  time  since  received,  and 
for  the  copy  of  the  Postal  Guide  drawing  my  attention 
to  the  postal  order  system.  The  unsatisfactoriness  of 
this  for  the  purpose  I  have  in  view  is  both  that  it  in- 
volves a  small  tax  and  entails  a  considerable  amount  of 
clerical  labour. 

^^ithin  these  last  few  days  I  have  hit  upon  a  device 
which,  it  seems  to  me,  solves  the  problem  satisfactorily; 
and  on  discussing  the  matter  with  Dr.  William  Smith, 
whose  wide  experience  as  a  publisher  of  dictionaries 


102  BOOK-DISTRIBUTION. 

makes  liiin  a  good  judge  of  the  commerce  of  literature, 
he  agrees  with  me  that  it  is  practicable,  and  that  im- 
mense benefits  might  be  achieved  by  adopting  it.  I  in- 
close a  postcard  showing  the  plan  I  propose.  It  is  a  sup- 
posed order  for  a  book  of  my  own.  On  the  face  it  is,  of 
course,  addressed  to  the  publisher.  On  the  back  the 
purchaser  who  wishes  to  have  the  book  sent  to  him 
writes,  as  shown,  the  order,  with  his  name  and  address. 
Below  he  affixes  postage-stamps  to  the  amount  of  the 
price:  the  space  allowed  being  ample  for  the  great  ma- 
jority of  books  if  shilling  stamps  are  used.  He  then 
scribbles  over  the  affixed  stamps  so  as  to  erase  them  and 
make  them  unavailable  even  should  they  be  detached. 
All  these  acts  he  may,  if  he  please,  go  through  at  the 
post-office  where  he  may  purchase  both  the  postcard  and 
the  stamps;  and  write  what  he  has  to  say  at  the  counter 
where  postal-orders,  etc.  are  drawn.  He  then  posts  the 
card;  and  it  goes  along  with  other  letters  and  cards,  and 
is  delivered  to  the  publisher  of  the  book.  The  publisher 
addresses  the  required  book  to  him  (and  were  the  system 
established  he  would  have  a  whole  stock  of  copies 
wrapped  up  and  stamped  ready  for  addressing);  and  he 
does  the  like  with  numerous  other  orders  for  other  books. 
One  of  his  clerks  then  takes  the  postcards,  perhaps  50 
to  100,  received  that  morning,  writes  down  from  each 
the  amount  it  bears  in  stamps,  and  adds  up  the  column 
of  all  these  values,  ascertaining  the  total  due  from  the 
post-office.  The  clerk  then  takes  the  publisher's  stamp, 
bearing  the  name  of  the  firm,  and  impresses  it  on  each  of 
the  cards,  showing  that  it  has  passed  through  the  pub- 
lisher's establishment.  Then  at  the  same  time  that  he 
sends  his  messenger  with  the  books  to  the  post-office,  the 
publisher  also  sends  all  these  cards  and  list  of  their  values 


BOOK-DISTRIBUTION-.  103 

to  be  lianded  in  to  the  post-office  clerk,  wlio  checks  the 
list  bj  the  cards  and  having  also  checked  the  addition, 
gives  it  to  some  superior  official  to  write  out  a  cheque 
for  the  amount  payable  to  the  publisher. 

The  advantages  achieved  are  these: — 

1st.  The  book-purchaser,  even  if  he  goes  himself  to 
the  post-office,  has  to  go  through  no  appreciably  greater 
trouble  than  if  he  went  to  his  retail  bookseller  and 
ordered  the  book;  and  if  he  has  in  his  house  postcards 
and  stamps  to  the  amount  required,  less  trouble  is  en- 
tailed upon  him;  since  he  may  send  the  postcard  by  his 
servant  along  with  other  letters  to  the  post-office. 

2nd.  Xeither  by  the  servant  of  the  purchaser,  nor  by 
a  post-office  clerk,  nor  by  a  letter-carrier  can  the  stamps 
sent  in  payment  be  utilized,  even  if  they  could  be  de- 
tached by  steaming  or  otherwise  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
be  undamaged;  for,  being  erased,  they  would  be  un- 
available by  anybody  else.  Being  erased  in  the  way 
shown  they  are  of  value  only  to  the  publisher  to  whom 
the  card  is  addressed. 

3rd.  At  the  post-office  where  the  card  is  posted  no 
more  trouble  is  entailed  by  it  than  by  an  ordinary  letter; 
and  the  profit  of  the  post-office  in  sending  the  order  is 
provided  for  as  it  is  in  an  ordinary  letter  or  card. 

4th.  As  the  postcard  thus  bearing  these  stamps  has 
to  be  stamped  by  the  publisher  to  whom  it  is  addressed 
before  it  can  be  exchanged  at  the  post-office  for  its 
value,  it  is  rendered  unavailable  by  anyone  else  into 
whose  hands  it  goes.  The  letter-carrier,  even  if  dishon- 
est, can  make  no  use  of  it,  seeing  that  he  cannot  get  the 
use  of  the  publisher's  stamp.  Only  by  forging  the  pub- 
lisher's stamp  would  the  card  be  rendered  available  by 
him;  and  then  the  danger  of  detection  would  be  so  great 


104  BOOK-DISTRIBUTION. 

tliat  tlie  tiling  could  not  be  done.  In  tlic  first  place,  tlie 
publisher's  ordinary  messenger  being  known  at  the  post- 
office,  the  presentation  of  cards  by  anyone  else  would  at 
once  draw  attention;  and,  in  the  second  place,  any  such 
considerable  abstraction  of  cards  from  those  which  daily 
came  to  the  publisher  as  would  be  required  to  make  the 
robbery  worth  wdiile,  would  at  once  raise  inquiry;  since 
there  would  come  in  a  few  days  letters  to  the  publisher 
from  those  who  had  not  received  the  books  ordered,  and 
a  hue  and  cry  w^ould  be  raised.  .  Forging  the  publisher's 
stamp,  wdiich  could  be  the  only  mode  of  theft,  would  thus 
be  extremely  rare,  if  it  ever  occurred. 

5th.  Moreover,  since  the  post-office  would  pay  the 
publisher  by  cheque,  wdiich  might  be  made  payable  to 
order,  no  person  of  the  class  of  a  letter-carrier  or  a  post- 
office  clerk  would  be  able,  if  he  did  commit  forgery,  to 
get  the  money. 

6th.  The  only  w^ork  which  this  process  of  transmis- 
sion would  give  to  the  post-office  would  be  that  of  going 
through  the  number  of  postcards  brought  by  the  pub- 
lisher's messenger,  checking  the  list  of  the  sums  con- 
tained on  them,  and  checking  the  addition.  If  this 
labour  is  divided  over  the  whole  number  of  cards,  say 
from  50  to  100  brought  at  once,  the  amount  of  labour 
entailed  by  the  transaction  which  each  card  represents 
is  seen  to  be  extremely  small.  To  which  add  that  against 
this  amount  of  trouble  given  to  the  post-office  there 
would  be  a  countervailing  economy.  Under  such  a  sys- 
tem the  number  of  postcards  delivered  by  each  post  to  a 
publisher  would  be  great;  and  since  the  chief  cost  of  the 
postal  system  is  in  the  delivery,  the  cost  of  delivery,  when 
a  great  number  of  cards  w^re  taken  at  once  by  a  letter- 
carrier  to  the  publisher,  would  be,  for  each  one  of  them. 


BOOK-DISTRIBUTION.  105 

greatly  reduced.  Obviously,  tlie  diminished  cost  of  de- 
livery for  each  card  would  more  than  compensate  for 
the  amount  of  trouble  taken  in  checking  and  adding  up 
the  amounts.  If  a  halfpenny  for  a  postcard  suffices  to 
pay  for  the  cost  of  delivery  at  present,  then  there  would 
actually  be,  by  multiplication  of  transactions,  a  profit, 
rather  than  a  loss  to  the  post-office. 

7th.  Further,  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
post-office  would  make  its  profit  on  the  postage  of  the 
books  ordered.  If  the  amounts  now  charged  for  the 
transmission  of  books  are  adequate  to  cover  the  cost 
and  leave  a  margin,  then  whatever  multiplies  such  trans- 
actions profits  the  post-office;  and  therefore,  if  there 
were  any  unpaid  trouble,  entailed  by  these  cards  upon 
the  post-office,  it  would  be  repaid  by  the  profits  on  the 
books  sent  according  to  order. 

8th.  Should  it,  however,  be  held  that  the  transaction 
must  be  made  to  bring  positive,  obvious  profit,  then  this 
end  might  easily  be  achieved  by  the  requirement  that 
a  halfpenny  postage-stamp  should  be  affixed  on  the  post- 
card in  addition  to  the  printed  stamp. 

My  anxiety  to  get  some  such  system  adopted  is  due 
to  the  fact,  which  I  think  I  indicated  when  I  had  the 
pleasure  of  talking  with  you  at  Mr.  Eustace  Smith's,  that 
an  immense  lowering  of  price  in  books  might  be  achieved 
in  this  way,  and  a  consequent  immense  extension  in 
their  diffusion.  The  present  system  of  distribution 
through  wholesale  houses  and  retail  booksellers  is  an 
absurd  anachronism.  It  grew  up  under,  and  was  appro- 
priate to,  the  ancient  system  of  communication  by 
coaches  and  subsequently  by  railway  parcels;  but  is  al- 
together inappropriate  to  a  time  when  the  book-post 
furnishes  a  better  system  of  distribution.  The  survival 
8 


106  BOOK-DISTRIBUTION. 

of  the  old  system  is  tine  to  organized  trade  interests;  and 
it  immensely  impedes  the  diffusion  of  books  by  paying 
for  a  hxbonr  which  has  become  unnecessary.  It  is  true 
that  of  late  times  the  nominal  prices  of  books  are  prac- 
tically reduced  by  the  discount  of  2d.  in  the  shilling, 
or  even  more  by  some  retailers;  but,  in  the  first  place, 
this  does  not  prevent  book-buyers  from  being  often  de- 
terred from  buying  by  reading  in  an  advertisement  the 
nominal  price  of  a  book,  which  they  think  too  high  to 
be  afforded  by  them;  and,  in  the  second  place,  the  re- 
duction which  these  retailers  make  is  nothing  like  as 
great  as  might  be  made  if  the  labour  of  both  wholesaler 
and  retailer  were  done  away  w^ith,  as  it  ought  now  to  be. 
Fully  40  per  cent,  of  the  published  price  of  every  book 
now  goes  to  cover  the  cost  of  porterage — the  cost  of 
transferring  the  book  from  the  publisher  to  the  reader. 
This  40  per  cent,  by  no  means  represents  the  entire  en- 
hancement of  the  published  price  of  the  book.  Prices 
of  books  would  be  lowered  by  much  more  than  40  per 
cent,  if  this  existing  system  could  be  replaced  in  the  way 
I  have  described.  As  you  know,  better  than  I  do,  it  is 
a  familiar  truth,  especially  to  economists,  that  any  tax 
on  a  commodity  raises  its  price  by  more  than  the  amount 
of  the  tax;  and  this  holds  very  obviously  in  the  present 
case.  Let  the  40  per  cent,  be  deducted  from  the  adver- 
tised prices  of  books,  and  immediately  the  demand  for 
them  becomes  immensely  greater,  probably  double.  The 
demand  being  doubled  makes  it  possible  to  obtain  an 
adequate  return  with  a  smaller  profit  on  each  copy  to 
author  and  publisher;  and  therefore  prompts  a  still  fur- 
ther reduction  in  the  price,  and  this  again  a  still  fur- 
ther distribution,  acting  and  re-acting.  So  that  I  do 
not  doubt  that  the  prices  of  books  would,  by  the  adoption 


M.  DE  LAVELEYE'S  ERROR.  107 

of  tins  system,  be  lowered  by  one  lialf.  As  a  further 
reason  for  this  I  should  add  that  even  the  publisher 
could  afford,  setting  aside  the  increase  in  his  business, 
to  lower  his  rate  of  profit  on  each  copy;  for  the  reason 
that  his  transactions  would  be  much  less  costly.  At 
present  his  business  with  wholesale  and  some  retail 
houses  entails  a  considerable  amount  of  book-keeping, 
and  a  staff  of  clerks  adapted  to  the  labour.  But  in  the 
system  described  the  greater  part  of  this  book-keeping- 
would  disappear;  the  work  of  fulfilling  the  orders  re- 
ceived would  be  purely  mechanical;  and  a  small  staff 
of  a  lower  capacity  would  suffice  his  needs,  enabling 
him  to  diminish  the  rate  of  profit  per  copy  he  at  present 
requires.  Further,  being  prepaid,  he  would  have  to 
make  no  allowance  for  bad  debts;  and  this  would  again 
diminish  the  needful  rate  of  profit. 

I  may  add  that  the  great  lowering  in  the  price  of 
books  which  would  inevitably  take  place,  w^ould  more 
especially  tell  upon  the  graver  and  higher  priced  books, 
•wdiich  are  now  beyond  the  reach  of  the  great  mass  of 
book-buyers. 


M.    DE   LAVELEYE'S   EREOR. 

By  way  of  introduction  to  this  article  nothing  more 
is  needed  than  to  say  that  it  was  published  in  The  Con- 
temporary Review  for  April,  1885,  under  the  title  ^'  A 
Rejoinder  to  M.  de  Laveleye.''  The  misinterpretation 
he  made  of  my  political  views  is  one  very  generally 
made,  and  these  pages,  which  seek  to  exclude  it,  may 
therefore  fitly  have  a  permanent  place. 


108  M.   DE  LAVELEYE'S  ERROR. 

The  editor  of  the  Contemporary  Revieiv  having 
kindly  allowed  me  to  see  a  proof  of  the  foregoing  article 
by  M.  de  Laveleye,  and  having  assented  to  my  request 
that  I  might  be  allowed  to  append  a  few  explanations 
and  comments,  in  place  of  a  more  formal  reply  in  a 
future  number  of  the  Review,  I  have,  in  the  following 
pages,  set  down  as  much  as  seems  needful  to  prevent 
the  grave  misunderstandings  likely  to  be  produced  by 
M.  de  Laveleye's  criticisms,  if  they  are  permitted  to  pass 
unnoticed. 

On  the  first  page  of  his  essay,  M.  de  Laveleye,  refer- 
ring to  the  effort  to  establish  ^'  greater  equality  among 
men  "  by  "  appropriating  State,  or  communal,  revenues  '^ 
for  that  end,  writes — 

"  Mr.  Spencer  considers  that  this  effort  for  the  im- 
provement of  the  condition  of  the  working-classes,  which 
is  being  everywhere  made  with  greater  or  less  energy,  is 
a  violation  of  natural  laws,  which  will  not  fail  to  bring 
its  own  punishment  on  nations,  thus  misguided  by  a  blind 
philanthropy  "  (p.  485). 

As  this  sentence  stands,  and  especially  as  joined  with 
all  which  follows,  it  is  calculated  to  produce  the  impres- 
sion that  I  am  opposed  to  measures  "  for  the  improve- 
ment of  the  condition  of  the  working-classes."  This  is 
quite  untrue,  as  numerous  passages  from  my  books  would 
show.  Two  questions  are  involved — What  are  the  meas- 
ures? and — What  is  the  agency  for  carrying  them  out? 
In  the  first  place,  there  are  various  measures  conducive 
to  "  improvement  of  the  condition  of  the  working- 
classes  "  which  I  have  always  contended,  and  still  con- 
tend, devolve  on  public  agencies,  general  and  local — 
above  all,  an  efficient  administration  of  justice,  by  which 


M.   DE  LAVELEYE'S  ERROR.  109 

tliey  benefit  both  directly  and  indirectly — an  adminis- 
tration such  as  not  simply  represses  violence  and  fraud, 
but  promptly  brings  down  a  penalty  on  every  one  who 
trespasses  against  his  neighbour,  even  by  a  nuisance. 
While  contending  for  the  diminution  of  State-action  of 
the  positively-regulative  kind,  I  have  contended  for  the 
increase  of  State-action  of  the  negatively-regulative  kind 
— that  kind  which  restrains  the  activities  of  citizens 
within  the  limits  imposed  by  the  existence  of  other  citi- 
zens who  have  like  claims  to  carry  on  their  activities.  I 
have  shown  that  '^  maladministration  of  justice  raises, 
very  considerably,  the  cost  of  living  for  all;  "  *  and  is, 
therefore,  felt  especially  by  the  working-classes,  whose 
state  is  most  closely  dependent  on  the  cost  of  living.  As 
one  of  the  evils  of  over-legislation,  I  have,  from  the  be- 
ginning, urged  that,  while  multitudinous  other  questions 
absorb  public  attention,  the  justice-question  gets  scarcely 
any  attention;  and  social  life  is  everywhere  vitiated  by 
the  consequent  inequities. f  While  defending  laissez- 
faire  in  its  original  and  proper  sense,  I  have  pointed  out 
that  the  policy  of  universal  meddling  has  for  its  con- 
comitant that  vicious  laissez-faire  which  leaves  dishon- 
esty to  flourish  at  the  expense  of  honesty.:}:  In  the 
second  place,  there  are  numerous  other  measures  con- 
ducive to  "  the  improvement  of  the  condition  of  the 
working-classes ''  which  I  desire  quite  as  much  as  M. 
de  Laveleye  to  see  undertaken;  and  simply  differ  from 
him  concerning  the  agency  by  which  they  shall  be 
undertaken.     Without  wishing  to  restrain  philanthropic 

^  Study  of  Sociology,  p.  384,  postscript. 

f  See  Social  Statics :  "  The  Duty  of  the  State."    Also  Essays,  vol. 
iii.  pp.  232  and  272. 

X  Study  of  Sociology,  pp.  320-2. 


110  M.  DE  LAVELEYE'S  ERROR. 

action,  but  quite  contrariwise,  I  have  in  various  places 
argued  that  philanthropy  will  better  achieve  its  ends  by 
non-governmental  means  than  by  governmental  means. ^ 
M.  de  Laveleye  is  much  more  familiar  than  I  am  with 
the  facts  showing  that,  in  societies  at  large,  the  organ- 
ized arrangements  which  carry  on  production  and  dis- 
tribution have  been  evolved  not  only  without  State- 
help,  but  very  generally  in  spite  of  State-hindrance; 
and  hence  I  am  surprised  that  he  apparently  gives  no 
credence  to  the  doctrine  that,  by  private  persons  acting 
either  individually  or  in  combination,  there  may  be 
better  achieved  multitudinous  ends  wdiich  it  is  the  fash- 
ion to  invoke  State-agency  for. 

Speaking  of  the  domain  of  individual  liberty,  M.  de 
Laveleye  says — 

^^  To  be  brief,  I  agree  with  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  that, 
contrary  to  Rousseau's  doctrine.  State  power  ought  to 
be  limited,  and  that  a  domain  sliould  be  reserved  to  indi- 
vidual liberty  which  should  be  always  respected ;  but  the 
limits  of  this  domain  should  be  fixed,  not  by  the  people, 
but  by  reason  and  science,  keeping  in  view  what  is  best 
for  the  public  welfare  ''  (p.  488). 

I  am  a  good  deal  perplexed  at  finding  the  last  clause  of 
this  sentence  apparently  addressed  to  me  as  though  in  op- 
position. Social  Statics  is  a  work  mainly  occupied  with 
the  endeavour  to  establish  these  limits  by  "  reason  and 
science."  In  the  Data  of  Ethics,  I  have  sought,  in  a 
chapter  entitled  the  "  Sociological  View,''  to  show  how 
certain  limits  to  individual  liberty  are  deducible  from 
the  laws  of  life  as  carried  on  under  social  conditions. 
And  in  The  Man  versus  The  State ,  which  M.  de  Laveleye 

*  Social  Statics :  "  Poor  Laws." 


M.   DE  LAVELEYE'S  EEROR.  HI 

is  more  particularly  dealing  witll,  one  part  of  tlie  last 
chapter  is  devoted  to  showing,  deductively,  the  deriva- 
tion of  what  are  called  "  natural  rights  "  from  the  vital 
needs  which  each  man  has  to  satisfy  by  activities  pur- 
sued in  presence  of  other  men  who  have  to  satisfy  like 
needs ;  while  another  part  of  the  chapter  is  devoted  to 
showing,  inductively,  how  recognition  of  natural  rights 
began,  in  the  earliest  social  groups,  to  be  initiated  by 
those  retaliations  which  trespasses  called  forth — retalia- 
tions ever  tending  to  produce  respect  for  the  proper  limits 
of  action.  If  M.  de  Laveleye  does  not  consider  this  to 
be  an  establishment  of  limits  "  by  reason  and  science," 
what  are  the  kinds  of  "  reason  and  science  ''  by  which  he 
expects  to  establish  them? 

On  another  page  M.  de  Laveleye  says — 

"  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  State  should  make  use  of 
its  legitimate  powers  of  action  for  the  establishment  of 
greater  equality  among  men,  in  proportion  to  their  per- 
sonal merits  "  (p.  489). 

Merely  observing  that  the  expression  "  its  legitimate 
powers  of  action  "  seems  to  imply  a  begging  of  the  ques- 
tion, since  the  chief  point  in  dispute  is — What  are  ^'  its 
legitimate  powers  of  action?  "  I  go  on  to  express  my  sur- 
prise at  such  a  sentence  coming  from  a  distinguished  poli- 
tical economist.  M.  de  Laveleye  refers  to  the  "  old-fash- 
ioned political  economy,''  implying  that  he  is  one  of  those 
younger  economists  who  dissent  from  its  doctrine;  but  I 
was  quite  unprepared  to  find  that  his  dissent  went  so  far 
as  tacitly  to  deny  that  in  the  average  of  cases  a  propor- 
tioning of  rewards  to  personal  merits  naturally  takes  place 
under  the  free  play  of  supply  and  demand.  Still  less, 
after  all  the  exposures  made  of  the  miseries  inflicted  on 


112  M.   DE  LAVELEYE'S  ErtROR. 

men  throiiglioiit  the  2:>ast  Lv  tlie  blundering  attempts  of 
the  State  to  adjust  prices  and  wages,  did  I  expect  to  see 
in  a  political  economist  sucli  a  revived  confidence  in  the 
State  as  would  commission  it  to  adjust  men's  rewards 
"  in  proportion  to  their  personal  merits."  I  hear  that 
there  are  some  who  contend  that  payment  should  be  pro- 
portionate to  the  disagreeableness  of  the  work  done:  the 
imjDlication,  I  suppose,  being  that  the  knacker  and  the 
nightman  should  receive  two  or  three  guineas  a  day, 
wdiile  a  physician's  fee  should  be  half-a-crown.  But,  with 
such  a  proportioning,  I  suspect  that,  as  there  would  be 
no  returns,  adequate  to  repay  the  cost  and  time  and  la- 
bour of  preparation  for  the  practice  of  medicine,  physic- 
ians would  quickly  disappear;  as  would,  indeed,  all  those 
required  for  the  higher  social  functions.  I  do  not  sup- 
pose that  M.  de  Laveleye  contemplates  a  proportioning 
just  of  this  kind.  But  if  in  face  of  all  experience,  past 
and  present,  he  trusts  officialism  to  judge  of  "  personal 
merits,''  he  is  sanguine  to  a  degree  which  surprises  me. 
One  of  the  questions  which  M.  de  Laveleye  asks  is — 

"  If  the  intervention  of  public  power  for  the  improve- 
ment of  the  condition  of  the  working-classes  be  a  con- 
tradiction of  history,  and  a  return  to  ancient  militant 
society,  how  is  it  that  the  country  in  which  the  new  in- 
dustrial organization  is  the  most  developed — that  is  to 
say,  England — is  also  the  country  where  State  interven- 
tion is  the  most  rapidly  increasing,  and  where  opinion 
is  at  the  same  time  pressing  for  these  powers  of  inter- 
ference to  be  still  further  extended?  "  (p.  491). 

Several  questions  are  here  raised  besides  the  chief  one. 
I  have  already  pointed  out  that  my  objection  is  not  to 
"  intervention  of  public  power  for  the  improvement  of 
the  condition  of  the  working-classes,"  but  to  interven- 


M.   DE  LAVELEYE'S  ERROR.  113 

tions  of  certain  kinds.  Tlie  abolition  of  laws  forbidding 
trade-combinations,  and  of  laws  forbidding  tlie  travelling 
of  artisans,  were  surely  measures  which  improved  ^^  the 
condition  of  the  working-classes;  "  and  these  were  meas- 
ures which  I  should  have  been  eager  to  join  in  obtain- 
ing. Similarly,  at  the  present  time  I  am  desirous  of  see- 
ing provided  the  easiest  and  most  efficient  remedies  for 
sailors  fraudulently  betrayed  into  unseaworthy  ships; 
and  I  heartily  sympathize  with  those  who  denounce  the 
continual  encroachments  of  landowners — enclosures  of 
commons  and  the  turf-covered  borders  of  lanes,  &c. 
These,  and  kindred  injustices  to  the  working-classes, 
stretching  far  back,  I  am  no  less  desirous  to  see  remedied 
than  is  M.  de  Laveleye;  provided  always  that  due  care  is 
taken  that  other  injustices  are  not  committed  in  remedy- 
ing them.  Evidently,  then,  this  expression  of  M.  de 
Laveleye  raises  a  false  issue.  Again,  he  says  that  I  call 
this  public  intervention  on  behalf  of  the  working-classes 
"  a  return  to  ancient  militant  society."  This  is  quite  a 
mistake.  In  ancient  militant  society  the  condition  of  the 
working-classes  was  very  little  cared  for,  and,  indeed, 
scarcely  thought  of.  My  assertion  was  that  the  coercive 
system  employed  was  like  the  coercive  system  employed 
in  a  militant  society:  the  ends  to  which  the  systems  are 
directed  being  quite  different.  But  turning  to  the  chief 
point  in  his  question,  I  meet  it  by  counter-questions — 
Why  is  it  that  the  "  new  industrial  organization  ''  is  best 
developed  in  England?  and — Under  what  conditions  was 
it  developed  ?  I  need  hardly  point  out  to  M.  de  Laveleye 
that  the  period  during  which  industrial  organization  in 
England  developed  more  rapidly  and  extensively  than 
elsewhere,  was  a  period  during  which  the  form  of  govern- 
ment was  less  coercive  than  elsewhere,  and  the  indivi- 


IIJ^  M.   DE  LAVELEYE'S  ERROR. 

dual  less  interfered  witli  than  elsewhere.  And  if  now, 
led  by  the  admirers  of  Continental  bureaucracies,  eager 
pliilanthroi:)ists  are  more  rapidly  extending  State-admin- 
istrations here  than  they  are  being  extended  abroad,  it 
is  obviously  because  there  is  great  scope  for  the  further 
extension  of  them  here,  while  abroad  there  is  little  scope 
for  the  further  extension  of  them. 

In  justification  of  coercive  methods  for  ^'  improving 
the  condition  of  the  Avorking-classes,"  M.  de  Laveleye 
says — 

^^  One  fact  is  sufficient  to  show  the  great  progress 
due  to  this  State  legislation:  in  an  ever-increasing 
population,  crime  is  rapidly  and  greatly  diminishing  " 
(p.  496). 

'Now,  without  dwelling  on  the  fact,  shown  in  ]\Ir.  Pike's 
History  of  Crime  in  England,  that  ''  violence  and  law- 
lessness ''  had  increased  during  the  war  period  which  end- 
ed at  Waterloo;  and  without  dwelling  on  the  fact  that, 
after  the  recovery  from  prostration  produced  by  w^ar, 
there  was  a  diminution  of  crime  along  wdtli  that  great 
diminution  of  coercive  legislation  which  characterized  the 
long  period  of  peace;  I  go  on  to  remark  that  a  primary 
condition  to  the  correct  drawing  of  inferences  is — other 
things  equal.  Does  M.  de  Laveleye  really  think,  when 
comparing  the  state  of  the  last  generation  with  that  of 
the  present,  that  other  things  are  so  equal  that  to  the 
growth  of  State-administrations  can  be  ascribed  the  de- 
crease of  crime?  He  ignores  those  two  factors,  far  more 
important  than  all  others,  wdiich  have  produced  a  social 
revolution — railways  and  free-trade:  the  last  resulting 
from  the  abolition  of  govermental  restraints  after  a  long 
struggle,  and  the  first  effected  by  private  enterprise  car- 
ried out  in  spite  of  strenuous  opposition  for  some  time 


M.   DE  LAVELEYE'S  ERROE.  115 

made  in  tlie  Legislature.  Beyond  all  question,  tlie  pros- 
perity due  to  these  factors  lias  greatly  ameliorated  the 
condition  of  the  working-classes,  and  by  so  doing  has 
diminished  crime;  for  undoubtedly,  diminishing  the  dif- 
ficulties of  getting  food,  diminishes  one  of  the  tempta- 
tions to  crime.  If  M.  de  Laveleye  refers  to  a  more  recent 
diminution,  then,  unless  he  denies  the  alleged  relation 
between  drunkenness  and  crime,  he  must  admit  that  the 
temperance  agitation,  with  its  pledges,  its  ^^  Bands  of 
Hope,"  and  its  ''  Blue  Ribbon  League,"  has  had  a  good 
deal  to  do  with  it. 

Before  passing  to  the  chief  question  let  me  correct 
M.  de  Laveleye  on  some  minor  points.     He  says — 

"  I  think  that  the  great  fundamental  error  of  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer's  system,  which  is  so  generally  accepted 
at  the  present  day,  consists  in  the  belief  that  if  State 
power  were  but  sufficiently  reduced,"  &c. 

N^ow  I  set  against  this  a  sentence  not  long  since  pub- 
lished by  Mr.  Frederic  Harrison: 

''  Mr.  Spencer  has  himself  just  published  .  .  . 
The  Man  versus  The  State,  to  which  he  hardly  expects 
to  make  a  convert  except  here  and  there,  and  about 
which  an  unfriendly  critic  might  say  that  it  might  be 
entitled  ^  Mr.  Spencer  against  all  England.'  "  {Nine- 
teenth Century,  vol.  xvi.  p.  366.) 

The  fear  lest  my  arguments  should  prevail,  which  I 
presume  prompted  M.  de  Laveleye's  article,  is  evident- 
ly ill-founded.  I  wish  I  saw  reason  to  believe  that 
his  estimate  is  nearer  to  the  truth  than  the  opposite 
one. 

On  p.  490,  M.  de  Laveleye  writes — 

'^  The  law  that  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  desires  society 


IIG  M.   DE  LAVELEYE'S  ERROR. 

to  adopt  is  simply  Darwin's  law — ^  the  survival  of  tlie 
fittest.' '' 

Perhaps  I  may  be  excused  for  wishing  here  to  prevent 
further  confirmation  of  a  current  error.  In  his  article, 
M.  de  Laveleye  has  quoted  from  Social  Statics  passages 
showing  insistence  on  the  benefits  resulting  from  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest  among  mankind,  as  well  as  among 
animals;  though  he  ignores  the  fact  that  the  work  as 
a  whole  is  an  elaborate  statement  of  the  conditions  under 
which,  and  limits  w^ithin  which,  the  natural  process  of 
elimination  of  the  unfit  should  be  allowed  to  operate. 
Here  my  immediate  purpose  is  to  correct  the  impression 
which  his  statement,  as  above  worded,  produces,  by  nam- 
ing the  dates:  Social  Statics  was  published  in  1851; 
Mr.  Darwin's  Origin  of  Species  in  1859. 

And  now  I  pass  to  the  main  issue.  In  pursuance  of 
his  statement  that  I  wish  society  to  adopt  the  survival 
of  the  fittest  as  its  guiding  principle,  M.  de  Laveleye 
goes  on  to  describe  what  would  be  its  action  as  applied 
to  mankind.     Here  are  his  words. 

"  This  is  the  ideal  order  of  things  which,  we  are  told, 
ought  to  prevail  in  human  societies,  but  everything  in 
our  present  organization  (which  economists,  and  even 
Mr.  Spencer  himself,  admit,  however,  to  be  natural)  is 
wholly  opposed  to  any  such  conditions.  An  old  and 
sickly  lion  captures  a  gazelle;  his  younger  and  stronger 
brother  arrives,  snatches  away  his  prize,  and  lives  to  per- 
petuate the  species;  the  old  one  dies  in  the  struggle,  or 
is  starved  to  death.  Such  is  the  beneficent  law  of  the 
'  survival  of  the  fittest.'  It  was  thus  among  barbarian 
tribes.  But  could  such  a  law  exist  in  our  present  social 
order?  Certainly  not!  The  rich  man,  feebly  consti- 
tuted and  sickly,  protected  by  the  law,  enjoys  his  wealth, 
marries  and  has  offspring,  and  if  an  Apollo  of  herculean 
strength   attempted   to   take   from  him  his  possessions. 


M.   DE  LAVELEYE'S  ERROR.  117 

or  liis  wife,  he  would  be  thrown  into  prison,  and 
were  he  to  attempt  to  practise  the  Darwinian  law  of 
selection,  he  would  certainly  run  a  fair  risk  of  the  gal- 
lows "  (p.  492). 

^Now  though,  on  the  next  page,  M.  de  Laveleye  recog- 
nizes the  fact  that  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  as  I  con- 
strue it  in  its  social  applications,  is  the  survival  of  the 
industrially  superior  and  those  who  are  fittest  for  the  re- 
quirements of  social  life,  yet,  in  the  paragraph  I  have 
quoted,  he  implies  that  the  view  I  hold  w^ould  counte- 
nance violent  methods  of  replacing  the  inferior  by  the 
superior.  Unless  he  desires  to  suggest  that  I  wish  to  see 
the  principle  operate  among  men  as  it  operates  among 
brutes,  why  did  he  write  this  paragraph?  In  the  work 
before  him,  without  referring  to  other  works,  he  has 
abundant  proof  that,  above  all  things,  aggression  of 
every  kind  is  hateful  to  me;  and  he  scarcely  needs  tell- 
ing that  from  my  earliest  book,  written  more  than  a  third 
of  a  century  ago,  down  to  the  present  time,  I  have  urged 
the  change  of  all  laws  which  either  inflict  injustice  or 
fail  to  remedy  injustice,  whether  committed  by  one  in- 
dividual against  another,  or  by  class  against  class,  or  by 
people  against  people.  Why,  then,  did  M.  de  Laveleye 
make  it  seem  that  I  would,  if  I  could,  establish  a  reign 
of  injustice  under  its  most  brutal  form?  If  there  needs 
proof  that  in  my  view  the  struggle  for  existence  as  car- 
ried on  in  society,  and  the  greater  multiplication  of  those 
best  fitted  for  the  struggle,  must  be  subject  to  rigorous 
limitations,  I  may  quote  as  sufficient  proof  a  passage 
from  the  Data  of  Ethics:  premising  that  the  word  co- 
operation used  in  it,  must  be  understood  in  its  widest 
sense,  as  comprehending  all  those  combined  activities 
by  which  citizens  carry  on  social  life. 


118  M.   DE  LAVELEYE'S  ERROR. 

''  The  leading  traits  of  a  code  under  wliieli  complete 
living  through  voluntary  co-operation  [here  antithet- 
ically opposed  to  compulsory  co-operation,  characterizing 
the  militant  type  of  society]  is  secured,  may  be  simply 
stated.  The  fundamental  requirement  is  that  the  life- 
sustaining  actions  of  each  shall  severally  bring  him  the 
amounts  and  kinds  of  advantage  naturally  achieved  by 
tliem;  and  this  implies,  firstly,  that  he  shall  suffer  no 
direct  aggressions  on  his  person  or  property,  and,  second- 
ly, that  he  shall  suffer  no  indirect  aggressions  by  breach 
of  contract.  Observance  of  these  negative  conditions  to 
voluntary  co-operation  having  facilitated  life  to  the  great- 
est extent  by  exchange  of  services  under  agreement,  life 
is  to  be  further  facilitated  by  exchange  of  services  beyond 
agreement:  the  highest  life  being  reached  only  when, 
besides  helping  to  complete  one  another's  lives  by  speci- 
fied reciprocities  of  aid,  men  otherwise  help  to  complete 
one  another's  lives  "  (p.  149). 

This  passage,  indeed,  raises  in  a  convenient  form  the 
essential  question.  It  will  be  observed  that  in  it  are 
specified  two  sets  of  conditions,  by  conforming  to  which 
men  living  together  may  achieve  the  greatest  happiness. 
The  first  set  of  conditions  is  that  which  we  comprehend 
under  the  general  name  justice;  the  second  set  of  con- 
ditions is  that  which  we  comprehend  under  the  general 
name  generosiiy.  The  position  of  M.  de  Laveleye,  and 
of  the  multitudes  who  think  with  him,  is  that  the  com- 
munity, through  its  government,  may  rightly  undertake 
both  to  administer  justice  and  to  practise  generosity. 
On  the  other  hand,  I,  and  the  few  who  think  with  me, 
contend  that  justice  alone  is  to  be  administered  by  the 
community  in  its  corporate  capacity;  and  that  the  prac- 
tice of  generosity  is  to  be  left  to  private  individuals,  and 
voluntarily-formed  combinations  of  individuals.  In- 
suring each  citizen's  safety  in  person  and  property,  as 


M.  DE  LAVELEYE'S  EHROR.  110 

well  as  insuring  liim  such  returns  for  his  services  as  his 
fellow-citizens  agree  to  give,  is  a  public  affair;  while 
affording  him  help,  and  giving  him  benefits  beyond 
those  he  has  earned,  is  a  private  affair.  The  reason  for 
maintaining  this  distinction  is  that  the  last  duty  cannot 
be  undertaken  by  the  State  without  breach  of  the  first. 
The  vital  requirement  to  social  life  must  be  broken  that 
a  non-vital  requirement  may  be  fulfilled.  Under  a  reign 
of  absolute  justice  Unqualified  by  generosity,  a  social  life 
may  be  carried  on,  though  not  the  highest  social  life; 
but  a  reign  of  generosity  without  any  justice — a  system 
under  which  those  who  work  are  not  paid,  so  that  those 
who  have  been  idle  or  drunken  may  be  saved  from  misery 
— is  fatal;  and  any  approach  to  it  is  injurious.  That 
only  can  be  a  wholesome  state  in  which  conduct  brings 
its  natural  results,  good  or  evil,  as  the  case  may  be;  and 
it  is  the  business  of  Government,  acting  on  behalf  of  all, 
to  see  that  each  citizen  shall  not  be  defrauded  of  the 
good  results,  and  that  he  shall  not  shoulder  off  the  evil 
results  on  to  others.  If  others,  in  their  private  capacities, 
are  prompted  by  affection  or  pity  to  mitigate  the  evil 
results,  by  all  means  let  them  do  so:  no  power  can 
equitably  prevent  them  from  making  efforts,  or  giving 
money,  to  diminish  the  sufferings  of  the  unfortunate 
and  the  inferior;  at  the  same  time  that  no  power  can 
equitably  coerce  them  into  doing  this. 

If  M.  de  Laveleye  holds,  as  he  appears  to  do,  that 
enforcing  the  normal  relations  between  conduct  and 
consequences,  right  as  it  may  be  in  the  abstract,  is  im- 
practicable under  existing  social  conditions,  which  are 
in  many  cases  such  that  men  get  what  they  have  neither 
earned  nor  otherwise  equitably  received,  and  in  many 
cases  such  that  they  are  prevented  from  earning  any- 


120  GOVERNMENT  BY  MINORITY. 

thing;  then  my  reply  is,  by  all  means,  where  this  con- 
dition of  things  is  due  to  unjust  arrangements,  let  us 
rectify  these  arrangements  as  fast  as  we  can.  But  let  us 
not  adopt  the  disastrous  policy  of  establishing  new  injus- 
tices for  the  purpose  of  mitigating  the  mischiefs  pro- 
duced by  old  injustices. 


GOYEEIN-MEI^T  BY  MmOEITY. 

The  Irish  party  in  1885,  under  the  leadership  of  Mr. 
Parnell,  carried  on  an  organized  system  of  obstruction, 
the  aim  of  which  was  to  stop  all  legislation  until  Home 
Rule  had  been  granted.  The  immediate  question  was 
that  which  exclusively  occupied  attention,  but  it  seemed 
desirable  to  draw  attention  to  a  remoter  question  which 
was  involved;  and  to  this  end  I  published  the  following 
letter  in  The  Times  for  December  21,  1885. 

Amid  minor  political  issues  occupying  all  minds  the 
major  political  issue  passes  unnoticed. 

The  major  political  issue  is — shall  we  maintain  the 
supremacy  of  majorities?  While  in  theory  asserting  it 
more  emphatically  than  ever,  we  are  in  practice  meanly 
relinquishing  it.  The  very  moment  after  we  have  ex- 
tended the  system  of  government  by  majority  outside 
the  House,  we  are  tacitly  allowing  the  system  of  govern- 
ment by  minority  inside  the  House.  We  are  helplessly 
looking  forward  to  the  coercion  of  two  great  parties  by 
one  small  party. 

Right  feeling  alone,  or  moderate  intelligence  alone, 


EVOLUTIONARY  ETHICS.  121 

should  have  sufficed  to  make  sucli  a  thing  impossible, 
much  more  the  two  united.  This  impudent  dictation 
by  the  few  to  the  many  might  have  been  expected  to 
rouse  in  the  many  a  just  anger,  great  enough  to  make 
them  sink  all  party  differences  while  jointly  resisting 
it;  and  it  might  have  been  expected  that  Liberals  and 
Conservatives  alike,  wdthout  any  high  stretch  of  intel- 
lect, would  have  seen  that,  deeper  than  any  legislative 
question  which  divides  them,  is  the  question  whether 
they  shall  allow"  the  principle  on  which  all  our  legisla- 
tion is  founded  to  be  contemptuously  broken  through. 

Thirty  years  ago  Prince  Albert  gave  great  offence  by 
saying  that  representative  government  was  on  its  trial. 
We  are  now  approaching  a  supreme  moment  when  its 
trial  threatens  to  end  in  lamentable  failure.  If  this  fail- 
ure occurs — if  the  584  allow  themselves  to  be  coerced 
by  the  86 — then  the  584  will  be  traitors  to  free  institu- 
tions. 


eyolutio:n^aey  ethics. 

The  following  letter,  published  in  the  AtTiendeum  for 
August  5,  1893,  was  draw^n  from  me  in  response  to  cer- 
tain passages  in  the  Romanes  Lecture,  delivered  by  the 
late  Prof.  Huxley  at  Oxford  in  the  Spring  of  1893. 
These  passages  were  supposed  to  be  directed  against  doc- 
trines I  hold  (see  Athenceuniy  July  22,  1893);  and  it 
seemed  needful  that  I  should  defend  myself  against  an 
attack  coming  from  one  whose  authority  was  so  great. 
My  justification  for  including  this  letter  among  these 


122  EVOLUTIONAEY  ETHICS. 

fragments  is  that  since  the  Romanes  Lecture  referred  to 
exists  in  a  permanent  form,  it  is  proper  that  a  permanent 
form  should  be  given  to  my  reply. 

If  it  is  not  too  great  a  breach  of  your  rules,  will  you 
allow  me  space  for  some  remarks  suggested  by  the  review 
of  Prof.  Huxley's  lecture  on  ^'  Evolution  and  Ethics/' 
contained  in  your  issue  of  the  22nd  inst.? 

The  incongruity  between  note  19  of  the  series  ap- 
pended to  the  lecture,  and  a  leading  doctrine  contained 
in  the  lecture  itself,  is  rightly  joointed  out  by  your  re- 
viewer.    In  the  lecture  Prof.  Huxley  says: — 

^^  The  practice  of  that  which  is  ethically  best — what 
we  call  goodness  or  virtue — involves  a  course  of  conduct 
which,  in  all  respects,  is  opposed  to  that  which  leads  to 
success  in  the  cosmic  struggle  for  existence.  In  place  of 
ruthless  self-assertion  it  demands  self-restraint." — P.  33. 

But  in  note  19  he  admits  that^ 

^^  strictly  speaking  [why  not  rightly  speaking?],  social 
life  and  the  ethical  process,  in  virtue  of  which  it  ad- 
vances towards  perfection,  are  part  and  parcel  of  the 
general  process  of  evolution,  just  as  the  gregarious  habit 
of  innumerable  plants  and  animals,  which  has  been  of 
immense  advantage  to  them,  is  so." 

I  do  not  see  how  the  original  assertion  can  survive 
after  this  admission  has  been  made.  Practically  the  last 
cancels  the  first.  If  the  ethical  process  is  a  part  of  the 
process  of  evolution  or  cosmic  process,  then  how  can  the 
two  be  put  in  opposition?    Prof.  Huxley  says: — 

"  The  struggle  for  existence, ,  which  has  done  such 
admirable  work  in  cosmic  nature,  must,  it  appears  [ac- 
cording to  the  view  he  opposes],  be  eipially  beneficent 


EVOLUTIONARY  ETHICS.  123 

in  the  ethical  sphere.  Yet,  if  that  which  I  have  insisted 
upon  is  true ;  if  the  cosmic  process  has  no  sort  of  relation 
to  moral  ends;  if  the  imitation  of  it  by  man  is  inconsist- 
ent with  the  first  principles  of  ethics;  what  becomes  of 
this  surprising  theory  ?  " — P.  34. 

But  when  we  find  that  the  hypothetical  statement, 
''  if  the  cosmic  process  has  no  sort  of  relation  to  moral 
ends,"  is  followed  by  the  positive  statement  that  ''  the 
cosmic  process  "  has  "  a  sort  of  relation  to  moral  ends,'' 
we  may  ask,  "  what  becomes  of  this  surprising"  criti- 
cism? Obyiausly,.  indeed,  Prof.  Huxley  camiot  avoid 
admitting  jtliat  the  ethical  process,  and,  by  iinplication, 
the  ethical  man,  are  products  of  the  cosmic  process.  For 
if  the  ethical  man  is  not  a  product  of  the  cosmic  process, 
Avhat  is  he  a  product  of? 

The  view  of  wdiich  Prof.  Huxley  admits  the  truth  in 
note  19  is  the  view  which  I  have  perpetually  enunciated: 
the  difference  being  that  instead  of  relegating  it  to  an 
obscure  note,  I  have  made  it  a  conspicuous  component 
of  the  text.  As  f ar_back  as  1850^hen  I  didjiiiLyet  re- 
cognize  evolution  as  a  process  eonsxtensive  with  the  cosr 
mos,  but  only  as  a  process  exhibited  in  man  and  in  so- 
ciety, I  contended  that  social  progress  is  a  result  of  "  the 
ethical  process,"  saying  that — 

"  the  ultimate  man  will  be  one  whose  private  require- 
ments^oincide  with  public  ones.  He  will  be  that  man- 
ner of  man  who,  in  spontaneously  fulfilling  his  own  na- 
ture incidentally  performs  the  functions  of  a  social  unit; 
and  yet  is  only  enabled  so  to  fulfil  his  own  nature,  by  all 
others  doing  the  like." — Social  Statics^  ^'  General  Con- 
siderations." 

And  from  that  time  onwardsJLha^^e,  injvariousjways. 
Insisted  upon  this  truth.     In  a  chapter  of  the  Principles 


124  EVOLUTIONARY  ETHICS. 

of  Ethics  entitled  "  Altruism  versus  Egoism/'  it  is  con- 
tended that  from  the  dawn  of  life  altruism  of  a  kind  (par- 
ental altruism)  has  been  as  essential  as  egoism;  and  that 
in  the  associated  state  the  function  of  altruism  becomes 
wider,  and  the  importance  of  it  greater,  in  proportion 
as  the  civilization  becomes  higher.  Moreover,!  have 
said  that — 

^'  from  the  laws  of  life  it  must  be  concluded  that  unceas- 
ing social  discipline  will  so  mould  human  nature,  that 
eventually  sympathetic  pleasures  will  be  spontaneously 
pursued  to  the  fullest  extent  advantageous  to  each  and 
^W'—EtUcSy  §  95. 

^'^With  the  highest  type  of  human  life,  there  will 
come  also  a  state  in  which  egoism  and  altruism  are  so  con- 
ciliated that  the  one  merges  in  the  other." — Ih.^  ap- 
pended chapter  to  Part  I. 

Everywhere  it  is  asserted  that  the  process  of  adapta- 
tion (which,  in  its  direct  and  indirect  forms,  is  a  part  of 
the  cosmic  process)  must  continuously  tend  (under  peace- 
ful conditions)  to  produce  a  type  of  society  and  a  type  of 
individual  in  which  ^^  the  instincts  of  savagery  in  civilized 
men  "  will  be  not  only  "  curbed,"  but  repressed.  And  I 
believe  that  in  few,  if  any,  writings  w^ill  be  found  as  un- 
ceasing a  denunciation  of  that  brute  form  of  the  struggle 
for  existence  Avhich  has  been  going  on  between  societies, 
and  which,  though  in  early  times  a  cause  of  progress,  is 
now  becoming  a  cause  of  retrogression.  Xo  one  has  so 
often  insisted  that  "  the  ethical  process  "  is  hindered  by 
the  cowardly  conquests  of  bullet  and  shell  over  arrow  and 
assegai,  which  demoralize  the  one  side  while  slaughter- 
ing the  other. 

And  here,  while  referring  to  the  rebarbarizing  effects 
of  the  struggle  for  existence  carried  on  by  brute  force. 


EVOLUTIONARY  ETHICS.  125 

let  me  say  that  I  am  glad  to  have  Prof.  Huxley's  endor- 
sement of  the  proposition  that  the  survival  of  the  fittest 
is  not  always  the  survival  of  the  best.  Twenty  years  ago, 
in  an  essay  entitled  ''  Mr.  Martineau  on  Evolution/'  I 
pointed  out  that  "  the  fittest  "  throughout  a  wide  range  of 
cases — perhaps  the  widest  range — are  not  the  "  best  " ; 
and  said  that  I  had  chosen  the  expression  "  survival  of  the 
fittest "  rather  than  the  survival  of  the  best  because  the 
latter  phrase  did  not  cover  the  facts. 

Chiefly,  however,  I  wish  to  point  out  the  radical  mis- 
conceptions which  are  current  concerning  that  form  of 
evolutionary  ethics  with  which  I  am  identified.  In  the 
preface  to  The  Data  of  Ethics,  when  first  published  se- 
parately, I  remarked  that  by  treating  the  w'hole  subject 
in  parts,  which  w^ould  by  many  be  read  as  though  they 
were  wholes,  I  had  '^  given  abundant  opportunity  for  mis- 
representation." The  opportunity  has  not  been  lost. 
The  division  treating  of  ^'  Justice  "  has  been  habitually 
spoken  of  as  though  nothing  more  was  intended  to  be  said ; 
and  this  notwithstanding  warnings  which  the  division  it- 
self contains,  as  in  §  257,  and  again  in  §  270;  wdiere  it  is 
said  that  "  other  injunctions  which  ethics  has  to  utter  do 
not  here  concern  us  .  .  .  there  are  the  demands  and  re- 
straints included  under  N^egative  Beneficence  and  Posi- 
tive Beneficence,  to  be  hereafter  treated  of."  Even  if 
considered  apart,  however,  the  doctrine  set  forth  in  this 
division  has  no  such  interpretation  as  that  perversely  put 
upon  it.  It  is  represented  as  nothing  but  an  assertion  of 
the  claims  of  the  individual  to  what  benefits  he  can  gain 
in  the  struggle  for  existence;  w^hereas  it  is  in  far  larger 
measure  a  specification  of  the  equitable  limits  to  his  ac- 
tivities, and  of  the  restraints  which  must  be  imposed  on 
him.     I  am  not  aware  that  any  one  has  more  emphatic- 


120  EVOLUTIONARY  ETHICS. 

ally  asserted  tliat  society  in  its  corporate  capacity  must 
exercise  a  rigorous  control  over  its  individual  members,  to 
the  extent  needful  for  preventing  trespasses  one  upon 
another.  K^o  one  has  more  frequently  or  strongly  de- 
nounced governments  for  the  laxity  with  which  they  ful- 
fil this  duty.  So  far  from  being,  as  some  have  alleged, 
an  advocacy  of  the  claims  of  the  strong  against  the  weak, 
it  is  much  more  an  insistence  that  the  weak  shall  be  guard- 
ed against  the  strong,  so  that  they  may  suffer  no  greater 
evils  than  their  relative  weakness  itself  involves.  J^nd 
no  one  has  moje  vehemently  .cojidem n edlhai:  /^miserable 
laissez-faire  wdiich  calmly  looks  on  while  men  ruin  tliem- 
selves  in  trying  to  enforce  by  law  their  equitable  claims  '' 
Ethics,  §  271). 

]^ow  that  the  remaining  parts,  treating  of  Benefi- 
cence, have  been  added  to  the  rest,  the  perverse  misinter- 
pretation continues  in  face  of  direct  disj)roofs.  At  the 
very  outset  of  the  Etli  ics  it  is  said : — 

^'  There  remains  a  further  advance  not  yet  even 
hinted.  For  beyond  so  behaving  that  each  achieves  his 
ends  without  preventing  others  from  achieving  their 
ends,  the  members  of  a  society  may  give  mutual  help  in 
the  achievement  of  ends." — §6. 

And  in  a  subsequent  chapter  it  is  said  that 

"  the  limit  of  evolution  of  conduct  is  consequently  not 
reached" lint it,"l)eyond  avoidance  of  direct  and  indirect 
injuries  to  others,  there  are  spontaneous  efforts  to  further 
tlie  welfare  of  others."  "  It  may  be  shown  that  the  form 
of  nature  which  thus  to  justice  adds  beneficence,  is  one 
which  adaptation  to  the  social  state  produces." — §  54. 

These  are  texts  which  in  Parts  Y.  and  VI.,  dealing  with 
Beneficence,  !N^egative  and  Positive,  are  fully  expanded. 


EVOLUTIOXARY  ETHICS.  12T 

Having  first  distinguislied  between  "  kinds  of  altruism," 
and  contended  that  the  kind  we  call  justice  has  to  be  en- 
forced by  the  incorporated  society,  the  State,  while  the 
kind  we  call  beneficence  must  be  left  to  individuals,  and 
after  pointing  out  the  grave  evils  which  result  if  this  dis- 
tinction is  not  maintained,  I  have  described  in  detail 
the  limits  to  men's  actions  which  negative  beneficence 
enjoins.  Then  come  two  chapters,  entitled  ^'  Restraints 
on  Free  Competition  "  and  "  Restraints  on  Free  Con- 
tract," respectively  indicating  various  cases  in  which  the 
restraints  imposed  by  law  must  be  supplemented  by  self- 
restraints,  and  instancing  one  of  the  excesses  committed 
under  free  competition  as  amounting  to  "  commercial 
murder."  Chapters  enjoining  further  self-restraints  for 
the  benefit  of  others  are  followed,  in  the  division  on  Posi- 
tive Beneficence,  by  chapters  enjoining  efforts  on  their 
behalf,  and  the  duty  which  falls  on  the  superior  of  miti- 
gating the  evils  which  the  inferior  have  to  bear.  After 
dealing,  in  a  chapter  on  "  Relief  of  the  Poor,"  with  the 
evils  often  caused  by  attempts  to  diminish  distress,  it  is 
contended  that  philanthropic  duty  should  be  performed 
not  by  proxy,  but  directly;  and  that  each  person  of 
means  ought  to  see  to  the  welfare  of  the  particular  cluster 
of  inferiors  with  whom  his  circumstances  put  him  in  re- 
lation. The  general  nature  of  the  doctrine  set  forth  may 
be  inferred  from  two  sentences  in  the  closing  chapter: — 

"  The  Jiighest  beneficence  is  that  which  is  not  only 
prepared,  if  need  be,  to  sacrifice  egoistic  pleasures,  but 
is  also  prepared,  if  need  be,  to  sacrifice  altruistic  pleas- 


And  then,  speaking  of  the  natures  which  "  the  ethical 
process  "  is  in  course  of  producing,  it  is  said  that 


128  EVOLUTIONARY  ETIIIOS. 

^^  in  such  natures  a  large  part  of  the  mental  life  must 
result  from  participation  in  the  mental  lives  of  others.'' 
— §  475. 

I  do  not  see  how  there  could  be  expressed  ideas  more 
diametrically  opposed  to  that  brutal  individualism  which 
some  persons  ascribe  to  me. 

It  remains  only  to  say  that  Prof.  Huxley's  attack 
upon  the  doctrines  of  Ravachol  &  Co.  has  my  hearty 
approval,  though  I  do  not  quite  see  the  need  for  it.  Evi- 
dently it  is  intended  for  the  extreme  anarchists;  or,  at 
least,  I  know  of  no  others  against  whom  his  arguments 
tell.  It  has  been  absurdly  supposed  that  his  lecture  was, 
in  part,  an  indirect  criticism  upon  theories  held  by  me. 
But  this  cannot  be.  It  is  scarcely  supposable  that  he  de- 
liberately undertook  to  teach  me  my  own  doctrines, 
enunciated  some  of  them  forty-odd  years  ago.  Passing 
over  the  historical  and  metaphysical  parts  of  his  lecture, 
his  theses  are  those  for  which  I  have  always  contended. 
We  agree  that  the  process  of  evolution  must  reach  a 
limit,  after  which  a  reverse  change  must  begin  (First 
Princifles,  chaps.  ^'Equilibration"  and  "Dissolution"). 
We  agree  that  the  survival  of  the  fittest  is  often  not  sur- 
vival of  the  best.  We  agree  in  denouncing  the  brutal 
form  of  the  struggle  for  existence.  We  agree  that  the 
ethical  process  is  a  part  of  the  process  of  evolution.  We 
agree  that  the  struggle  for  life  needs  to  be  qualified  when 
the  gregarious  state  is  entered,  and  that  among  gregari- 
ous creatures  lower  than  man  a  rudiment  of  the  ethical 
check  is  visible.  We  agree  that  among  men  the  ethical 
check,  becoming  more  and  more  peremptory,  has  to  be 
enforced  by  the  society  in  its  corporate  capacity,  the 
State.    We  agree  that  beyond  that  qualification  of  the 


EVOLUTIONARY  ETHICS.  129 

struggle  for  life  which  consists  in  restricting  the  activi- 
ties of  each  so  that  he  may  not  trench  upon  the  spheres 
for  the  like  activities  of  others,  which  we  call  justice, 
there  needs  that  further  qualification  which  we  call 
beneficence;  and  we  differ  only  respecting  the  agency 
by  which  the  beneficence  should  be  exercised.  We 
agree  in  emphasizing,  as  a  duty,  the  effort  to  mitigate 
the  evils  which  the  struggle  for  existence  in  the  social 
state  entails;  and  how  complete  is  this  agreement  may 
be  seen  on  observing  that  the  sentiment  contained  in 
Prof.  Huxley's  closing  lines  is  identical  with  the  senti- 
ment contained  in  the  last  paragraph  of  the  Principles 
of  Ethics.  Obviously,  then,  it  is  impossible  that  Prof. 
Huxley  can  have  meant  to  place  the  ethical  views  he 
holds  in  opposition  to  the  ethical  views  I  hold;  and  it  is 
the  more  obviously  impossible  because,  for  a  fortnight 
before  his  lecture,  Prof.  Huxley  had  in  his  hands  the 
volumes  containing  the  above  quotations,  along  with 
multitudinous  passages  of  kindred  meanings.  But  as 
this  erroneous  belief  is  prevalent,  it  seems  needful  for 
me  to  dissipate  it.     Hence  this  letter. 

The  closing  lines  of  this  last  paragraph  were  regarded 
by  Prof.  Huxley  as  tacitly  charging  him  with  an  unac- 
knowledged adoption  of  my  views.  It  did  not  occur  to 
me  when  writing  them  that  they  could  be  so  interpreted. 
My  intention  was  simply  to  show  that  he  had  abundant 
opportunity  for  seeing  at  first  hand  what  my  views  were, 
and  had  therefore  the  less  reason  for  presenting  his  own 
similar  views  as  though  they  stood  in  opposition  to  mine. 


130         SOCIAL  EVOLUTION  AND  SOCIAL  DUTY. 


SOCIAL  EYOLUTION^  AXD  SOCIAL  DUTY. 

It  is  quite  by  accident  that  this  fragment  succeeds 
the  last  in  order  of  date,  and  when  it  was  written  the  last 
was  not  in  my  thoughts.  The  sequence,  however,  is  for- 
tunate. Its  cardinal  idea  is  similar  to  that  contained  in 
my  reply  to  Prof.  Cairnes  already  given;  but  as  it  is 
differently  presented,  and  as  it  is  one  which  many  find 
it  difficult  to  grasp,  it  seems  desirable  to  repeat  it  in  this 
recast  form.  A  Congress  of  Evolutionists  was  held  at 
Chicago  on  Sept.  28,  29  and  30,  1893;  and  this  brief 
paper  was  sent  in  response  to  a  request  to  contribute  to 
its  proceedings. 

At  a  congress  which  has  for  its  chief  purpose  to 
advance  ethics  and  politics  by  diffusing  evolutionary 
ideas  it  seems  especially  needful  to  dissipate  a  current 
misconception  respecting  the  relation  in  which  we  stand 
individually  towards  the  process  of  social  evolution. 
Errors  of  a  certain  class  may  be  grouped  as  errors  of  the 
uncultured,  but  there  are  errors  of  another  class  which 
characterize  the  cultured — implying,  as  they  do,  a  large 
amount  of  knowledge  with  a  good  deal  of  thought  but 
yet  with  thought  not  commensurate  with  the  knowledge. 
The  errors  I  refer  to  are  of  this  class. 

The  conception  of  evolution  at  large,  as  it  exists  in 
those  who  are  aware  that  evolution  includes  much  more 
than  '^  natural  selection,"  involves  the  belief  that  from 


SOCIAL  EVOLUTION  AND  SOCIAL  DUTY.         131 

beginning  to  end  it  goes  on  irresistibly  and  uncon- 
scionslj.  The  concentration  of  nebulae  into  stars  and  tlie 
formation  of  solar  systems  are  determined  entirely  by 
certain  properties  of  the  matter  previously  diffused. 
Planets  which  were  once  gaseous,  then  liquid,  and  finally 
covered  by  their  crusts,  gradually  undergo  geological 
transformations  in  virtue  of  mechanical  and  chemical 
processes. 

Similarly,  too,  when  we  pass  to  organic  bodies,  plant 
and  animal.  Enabled  to  develop  individually,  as  they 
are,  by  environing  forces,  and  enabled  to  develop  as  spe- 
cies by  processes  which  continue  to  adapt  and  readapt 
thetn  to  their  changing  environments,  they  are  made  to 
fit  themselves  to  their  respective  lives  and,  along  certain 
lines,  to  reach  higher  lives,  purely  by  the  involved  play 
of  forces  of  which  they  are  unconscious.  The  conception 
of  evolution  at  large,  thus  far  correct,  is  by  some  ex- 
tended to  that  highest  form  of  evolution  exhibited  in 
societies.  It  is  supposed  that  societies,  too,  passively 
evolve  apart  from  any  conscious  agency;  and  the  infer- 
ence is  that,  according  to  the  evolutionary  doctrine,  it  is 
needless  for  individuals  to  have  any  care  about  progress, 
since  progress  will  take  care  of  itself.  Hence  the  asser- 
tion that  "  evolution  erected  into  the  paramount  law  of 
man's  moral  and  social  life  becomes  a  paralyzing  and 
immoral  fatalism." 

Here  comes  the  error.  Everyone  may  see  that 
throughout  the  lower  forms  of  evolution  the  process  goes 
on  only  because  the  various  units  concerned — molecules 
of  matter  in  some  cases,  and  members  of  a  species  in  an- 
other— respectively  manifest  their  natures.  It  would 
be  absurd  to  expect  that  inorganic  evolution  would  con- 
tinue if  molecules  ceased  to  attract  or  combine,  and  it 


132        SOCIAL  EVOLUTION  AND  SOCIAL  DUTY. 

would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  organic  evolution  would 
continue  if  the  instincts  and  appetites  of  individuals  of 
each  species  were  wholly  or  even  partially  suspended. 

Xo  less  absurd  is  it  to  expect  that  social  evolution 
will  go  on  apart  from  the  normal  activities,  bodily  and 
mental,  of  the  component  individuals — apart  from  their 
desires  and  sentiments,  and  those  actions  which  they 
prompt.  It  is  true  that  much  social  evolution  is  achieved 
without  any  intention  on  the  part  of  citizens  to  achieve 
it,  and  even  without  the  consciousness  that  they  are 
achieving  it.  The  entire  industrial  organization  in  all  its 
marvelous  complexity,  has  arisen  from  the  pursuit  by 
each  person  of  his  own  interests,  subject  to  certain  re- 
straints imposed  by  the  incorporated  society ;  and  by  this 
same  spontaneous  action  have  arisen  also  the  multi- 
tudinous appliances  of  industry,  science  and  art,  from 
flint  knives  up  to  automatic  printing  machines,  from 
sledges  up  to  locomotives — a  fact  which  might  teach 
politicians  that  there  are  at  work  far  more  potent  social 
agencies  than  those  which  they  control. 

]But  now  observe  that  just  as  these  astonishing  results 
of  social  evolution,  under  one  of  its  aspects,  could  never 
have  arisen  if  men's  egoistic  activities  had  been  absent, 
so  in  the  absence  of  their  altruistic  activities  there  could 
never  have  arisen  and  cannot  further  arise  certain  higher 
results  of  social  evolution.  Just  as  the  egoistic  feel- 
ings are  the  needful  factors  in  the  one  case,  so  the 
altruistic  feelings  are  the  needful  factors  in  the  other, 
and  whoever  supposes  the  theory  of  evolution  to  imply 
that  advanced  forms  of  social  life  will  be  reached  even 
if  the  sympathetic  promptings  of  individuals  cease  to 
operate,  does  not  understand  what  the  theory  is. 

A  simple  analogy  will  make  the  matter  clear.     All 


SOCIAL  EVOLUTION  AND  SOCIAL  DUTY.         133 

admit  tliat  we  have  certain  desires  which  insure  the  main- 
tenance of  the  race — that  the  instincts  which  prompt  to 
the  marital  relation  and  afterwards  subserve  the  parental 
relation  make  it  certain  that,  without  any  injunction  or 
compulsion,  each  generation  will  produce  the  next.  IN^ow 
suppose  some  one  argued  that  since,  in  the  order  of  na- 
ture, continuance  of  the  species  was  thus  provided  for, 
no  one  need  do  anything  towards  furthering  the  process 
by  marrying.  What  should  we  think  of  his  logic — what 
should  we  think  of  his  expectation  that  the  effect  would 
be  produced  when  the  causes  of  it  were  suspended? 

Yet  absurd  as  he  would  be,  he  could  not  be  more 
absurd  than  the  one  who  supposed  that  the  higher  phases 
of  social  evolution  would  come  without  the  activity  of 
those  sympathetic  feelings  in  men  which  are  the  factors 
of  them — or  rather,  he  would  not  be  more  absurd  than 
one  who  supposed  that  this  is  implied  by  the  doctrine  of 
evolution. 

The  error  results  from  failing  to  see  that  the  citizen 
has  to  regard  himself  at  once  subjectively  and  objective- 
ly— subjectively  as  possessing  sympathetic  sentiments 
(which  are  themselves  the  products  of  evolution);  ob- 
jectively as  one  among  many  social  units  having  like 
sentiments,  by  the  combined  operation  of  which  certain 
social  effects  are  produced.  He  has  to  look  on  himself 
individually  as  a  being  moved  by  emotions  which  prompt 
philanthropic  actions,  while,  as  a  member  of  society,  he 
has  to  look  on  himself  as  an  agent  through  whom  these 
emotions  work  out  improvements  in  social  life.  So  far, 
then,  is  the  theory  of  evolution  from  implying  a  "  para-  \  \ 
lyzing  and  immoral  fatalism/'  it  implies  that,  for  gene-  ! 
sis  of  the  highest  social  type  and  production  of  the  great- 
est general  happiness,  altruistic  activities  are  essential  j\ 


13-i  PARLIAMEXTxVRY  GEORGITES. 

as  well  as  egoistic  activities^  and  tliat  n  fino.  slmre  in 
tliem  is  obligatory  upon  each  citizen. 


PAELIAMEXTAEY   GEORGITES. 

While  the  Parish  Councils  Bill  was  before  Parlia- 
ment, I  made  the  following  comment,  under  the  title  of 
"  Parliamentary  Georgites ''  on  the  general  character  of 
its  provisions,  which  was  published  in  Tlie  Times  for 
February  20,  1894.  I  had  long  wished  to  express  the 
opinion  that  the  great  majority  of  Englishmen,  aban- 
doning as  they  have  done  the  teachings  of  political 
economists  and  those  who  a  generation  ago  had  diffused 
rational  ideas  concerning  the  State  and  its  functions,  are 
politically  drunk;  and  I  here  seized  the  occasion  for  in- 
dicating this  opinion  by  signing  this  letter — "'  One  who 
is  still  sober.'' 

How  Mr.  Henry  George  must  chuckle  as  he  reads 
about  the  doings  of  the  English  House  of  Commons! 
To  think  that  already  he  should  have  obtained  the 
majority  of  that  assemblage  as  converts  to  his  leading 
doctrine ! 

To  his  leading  doctrine?  Well,  if  not  to  the  doc- 
trine, yet  to  the  method  by  which  he  proposes  to  carry 
out  the  doctrine.  ''  We  must  not  turn  the  landlords  out, 
we  must  tax  them  out,"  has  been  his  injunction  for  years 
past,  and  our  legislators  are  obeying  his  injunction. 

Erom  the  time  when  the  compound  householder 
came  into  existence  it  has  become  manifest  a  posleriori, 


PARLIAMENTARY  GEORGITES.  135 

as  it  was  manifest  a  'priori^  that  giving  public  power 
to  men  without  imposing  on  them  public  burdens  leads 
to  extravagance  and  injustice.  Under  municipal  gov- 
ernments, practically  elected  by  non-ratepayers  (for  these 
can  turn  the  scale),  lavish  expenditure,  rising  rates,  and 
the  piling  up  of  vast  debts  have  proceeded  with  increas- 
ing rapidity.  Under  rural  governments,  similarly  elected, 
are  we  not  to  expect  similar  results? 

''  Trust  the  people,''  they  say.  Certainly,  trust  the 
people  to  do  that  which  human  beings  in  general  do — 
follow  their  own  ends.  When  "  the  classes  "  were  pre- 
dominant it  was  rightly  complained  that  they  dealt  un- 
justly with  '"'  the  masses."  !N^ow  that  "  the  masses  "  are 
predominant,  w^ill  they  not  deal  unjustly  with  "  the 
classes  "?  If  the  first  were  biased  by  their  interests,  will 
not  the  second  also  be  biased  by  their  interests?  And 
what  will  be  their  interests?  To  get  as  many  benefits  . 
as  possible  given  to  them  out  of  public  funds  to  which 
they  do  not  contribute — do  not  consciously  contribute. 

Doubtless  Mr.  Henry  George  knows  that  before  the 
Kevolution  one-fourth  of  France  was  made  valueless  by 
the  weight  of  taxation  and  became  waste.  Probably  he 
knows,  too,  that  under  our  old  Poor  Law  the  rates  had 
in  some  parishes  risen  to  half  the  rental,  and  that  in  one 
Buckinghamshire  parish  they  had  absorbed  the  whole 
proceeds  of  the  soil — owners'  rents,  occupiers'  profits — 
and  that  the  rector,  having  given  up  his  glebe  and  tithes, 
proposed  that  all  the  land  should  be  divided  among  the 
paupers. 

Perhaps  Mr.  George  will  infer  that,  if  this  could 
happen  when  the  rate-eaters  had  no  power  of  levying 
rates,  far  more  readily  will  it  happen  when  those  who  get 
gratis  benefits  from  rates  will  have  part  power  and  often 


136  A  RECORD  OF  LEGISLATION. 

the  chief  power  of  levying  rates.  And  if  he  infers  this, 
we  may  imagine  the  sardonic  grin  with  which  he  watches 
some  hundreds  of  propertied  representatives  complacent- 
ly smoothing  the  way  for  the  Socialists. 

There  are  moral  epidemics  as  well  as  physical  epi- 
demics; and  the  moral  influence,  or  influenza,  which  now 
prevails  so  widely  has  a  symptom  in  common  with  its 
physical  analogue — it  is  accompanied  by  nervous  pros- 
tration. Those  seized  by  it  are  smitten  with  paralysis 
of  reason.  For  how  else  can  we  account  for  the  astound- 
ing fact  that,  day  by  day,  the  selectmen  of  the  nation 
are  empowering  those  who  own  nothing  to  say  to  those 
who  own  something,  ^'  We  will  decide  what  shall  be 
done,  and  you  shall  pay  for  it.''  Actually  it  has  come 
to  this — that  ^'  collective  wisdom  "  thinks  society  will 
prosper  under  that  principle! 


A  EECOKD  OF  LEGISLATIOK 

The  project  described  in  the  following  letter,  which 
appeared  in  The  Times  for  Xov.  24,  1894,  is  one  I  had 
long  entertained;  and  the  incident  referred  to  in  its 
opening  paragraph  prompted  me  no  longer  to  delay  set- 
ting it  forth. 

The  attention  which  has  been  drawn  to  Mr.  Ilbert's 
proposal  for  a  record  of  comparative  legislation  suggests 
to  me  the  propriety  of  naming  a  project  akin  to  it  towards 
the  execution  of  which  a  small  step  has  been  made. 

The  project  I  refer  to  was  originally  conceived  as  a 
kind  of  supplement  to  the  "  Descriptive  Sociology  ''  (or 


A  RECORD  OF  LEGISLATION.  137 

rather  to  one  division  of  it),  and  might  eventually  have 
been  entered  upon  had  not  the  heavy  losses  year  by  year 
entailed  on  me  by  that  compilation  obliged  me  to  dis- 
continue it.  The  end  in  view  was  to  present  briefly,  in 
a  tabulated  form,  the  contents  of  our  Statute-book  from 
early  days  onwards,  showing  why  each  law  was  enacted, 
the  effects  produced,  the  duration,  and,  if  repealed,  the 
reasons  for  the  repeal;  the  general  purpose  being  that 
of  making  easily  accessible  the  past  experience  useful 
for  present  guidance.  The  scheme  in  its  developed  form 
included  like  tabulations  of  the  laws  of  other  nations, 
which,  while  making  comparisons  possible,  w^ould  enable 
us  to  profit  by  other  legislative  experiments  than  those 
of  our  ancestors.  There  was,  how^ever,  no  thought  of 
dealing  in  like  manner  with  the  legislation  of  the  Eng- 
lish-speaking races  at  large. 

In  1887  a  tentative  step  was  taken  towards  execution 
of  this  scheme.  There  existed  at  that  time  a  weekly 
publication  entitled  Jus,  established  and  edited  by  Mr. 
Wordsworth  Donisthorpe,  and  partly  devoted  to  the  ex- 
posure of  mischievous  law-making.  In  pursuance  of  a 
suggestion  which  he  says  I  made  to  him  in  1873,  he 
commenced  giving  instalments  of  such  a  digest  as  that 
described  above;  and  these  instalments  were  continued 
from  September,  1887,  to  March,  1888,  when  the  death 
of  the  periodical  brought  them  to  a  close. 

A  further  step  was  subsequently  taken.  Between 
two  and  three  years  ago  I  named  the  project  to  a  philan- 
thropic millionaire,  and  the  interest  he  displayed  in  it 
led  me  to  think  that  he  would  furnish  funds  for  carry- 
ing it  out.  That  he  might  be  able  to  decide,  however, 
it  was  needful  that  a  finished  portion  of  such  a  digest 
should  be  produced,  and,  in  consultation  ^vith  Mr.  Donis- 
10 


138  A  RECORD  OF  LEGISLATION. 

tliorpc,  a  final  form  of  table  was  agreed  upon.  Prompted 
by  the  expectation  raised,  Mr.  Donistliorpe  enlisted  in 
the  cause  Mr.  J.  C.  Spence,  by  whose  labours,  aided  by 
his  own,  a  table  was  duly  prepared,  put  in  type,  and 
printed.  As  is  shown  by  the  enclosed  copy  of  this  printed 
table,  its  parallel  columns,  severally  filled  up,  are 
headed: — "Reasons  for  the  Enactment'';  "Provisions 
of  Enactment";  "Date  and  Title";  "Effects";  "Re- 
peal." The  period  dealt  with  extended  from  1328  to 
1349;  and  the  table  showed  that  nearly  all  the  laws 
passed  have  been  repealed. 

To  complete  the  conception  of  the  scheme  it  should 
be  added  that  along  with  the  whole  series  of  tables,  thus 
sampled,  there  was  to  be  a  subject-index,  so  classified 
into  divisions  and  sub-divisions  of  matters  dealt  with  by 
law,  that  by  reference  to  any  particular  division  or  sub- 
division, and  then  to  the  pages  named  as  containing  the 
laws  relating  to  it,  it  would  be  possible  in  a  few  minutes 
to  learn  what  has  been  attempted  in  successive  centuries 
in  respect  of  any  particular  matter  and  with  what  re- 
sults. 

Unfortunately,  however,  when  this  sample  table  was 
put  before  my  millionaire  friend  he  expressed  the  opin- 
ion that  he  could  devote  his  surplus  revenues  to  pur- 
poses of  more  importance.  The  project  thus  dropped  and 
nothing  further  has  since  been  done. 

I  am  fully  conscious  that  no  such  compilation  could 
be  made  complete.  Doubtless  numerous  Acts  dealing 
with  trivial  matters  w^ould  have  to  be  omitted  to  prevent 
undue  voluminousness;  and  it  is  certain  that  in  many 
cases  the  eifects  produced  by  Acts  could  not  be  definitely 
stated;  though  in  these  cases  the  mere  fact  of  repeal 
would  often  have  sufiicient  significance.    But  it  is  not. 


A  RECORD  OF  LEGISLATION.  130 

therefore,  to  be  concluded  that  an  undertaking  of  this 
kind,  imperfectly  executed  though  it  might  be,  should 
not  be  carried  out  as  far  as  possible.  It  is  true  that  poli- 
ticians and  legislators  who  plume  themselves  on  being 
'^  practical,"  and  whose  facts  are  furnished  by  Blue- 
books  and  Parliamentary  Debates,  would  probably  pay 
but  small  respect  to  these  groups  of  facts  furnished  by 
the  legislative  experiments  of  our  forefathers.  Experi- 
ences of  the  day  satisfy  them.  But  those  who  take  wider 
views  and  see  that  generalizations  drawn  from  the  en- 
tire past  life  of  a  nation  are  more  to  be  trusted  than 
these  superficial  generalizations,  and  that  it  is  folly  to 
make  laws  without  inquiring  what  have  been  the  results 
of  essentially  similar  laws  long  ago  passed  and  long  ago 
abandoned,  will  see  that  such  a  work,  containing  easily 
accessible  information,  might  have  considerable  effect 
in  preventing  some  of  the  legislative  blunders  which  are 
daily  made. 

It  is  more  for  the  purpose  of  putting  this  project  on 
record  than  with  the  hope  that  it  may  be  executed  in 
our  day  that  I  write  this  letter.  The  ambitions  which 
now  prevail  among  the  wealthy,  and  in  fulfilment  of 
which  they  spend  large  sums,  may  hereafter  be  replaced 
by  ambitions  of  a  higher  kind,  and  then  the  needful 
funds  may  be  forthcoming. 

In  a  leading  article  commenting  on  this  letter,  which 
appeared  simultaneously,  it  was  objected  that  it  would 
be  impracticable  to  ascertain  the  good  or  evil  effects  of 
past  laws  and  the  reasons  why  they  had  been  repealed. 
Doubtless  in  many  cases  ascertainment  would  be  difficult 
and  even  impossible.     But  if,  as  a  general  rule,  the 


140  ANGLO-AMERICAN  ARBITRATION. 

effects  of  laws  cannot  be  ascertained,  then  it  becomes  im- 
possible to  distinguish  between  good  and  bad  laws;  and 
if  laws  cannot  be  classed  as  good  or  bad  by  their  ascer- 
tained effects,  then  one  law  is  as  good  as  another  and 
legislaticm  becomes  meaningless.  Even  without  press- 
ing this  logical  implication  it  may  be  replied  that  we 
ought  to  know  what  things  have  been  attempted  by  laws 
and  in  what  cases  repeal  soon  followed  or  enforcement 
was  found  impracticable. 

In  the  hope  that  hereafter  some  man  or  men  of 
adequate  means  will  see  that  such  a  record,  partially  if 
not  wholly  practicable,  would  be  of  high  value,  I  here 
append  the  sample  table  above  referred  to  as  having 
been  arranged  and  filled  up. 


ANGLO-AMERICAN  AEBITEATIOK 

On  March  3,  1896,  a  short  time  before  official  steps 
were  taken  towards  the  establishment  of  permanent  In- 
ternational Arbitration  with  the  United  States,  a  demon- 
stration in  furtherance  of  that  end  was  held  at  Queen's 
Hall,  Sir  James  Stansfeld  in  the  chair.  In  response  to 
an  appeal  I  sent  the  following  letter,  which  was  read 
at  the  meeting. 

Were  it  not  that  ill-health  obliges  me  to  shun  all 
excitements,  I  should  gladly  attend  the  meeting  to  be 
held  this  evening  at  Queen's-hall  in  support  of  Anglo- 


Reasoks  fob  the  Enactment. 


The  Staples  being  found  a  hindrance  to  trade : 


The  Public  being  plundered  by  the  King's  Purveyors  and 
Takers,  in  spite  of  previous  Statutes : 


Boat  Fares  having  been  raised  : 


Taverns  increase  in  number,  and  sell  wines  good  and  bad 
at  such  price  as  they  will,  to  the  great  hurt  of  the 
people : 

Former  Statutes  having  failed  lo  protect  the  Public  from 
the  Oppression  of  the  King's  Purveyors : 

Former  Statutes  having  failed  utterly  : 

The  Statute  of  Fairs  having  omitted  to  define  penalties : 


To  protect  Home  Cloth  Manufacture : 


To  establish  Uniform  System  of  Weights  and  Measures: 


To  put  down  Usury,  on  behalf  of  borrowers: 


The  great  Pestilence  and  the  French  Wars  having  raised 
the  value  of  labour,  and  at  the  same  time  impoverished 
the  propertied  classes : 


The  length  of  every  cloth  of  ray  to  be  measured  by  the  King's  aulnagers,  28  yard? 
long  by  the  list  'by  six  quarters  wide.  Coloured  cloths  26  yards  long  by  six  and 
a  half  quarters  wide.  Measuring  to  be  done  without  soiling  the  cloth.  All  cloths 
of  defective  measure  to  be  forfeit  to  the  King. 

All  fairs  limited  to  the  time  that  they  "  ought "  to  be  open.  Merchants  selling  after 
such  time  to  be  grievously  punished.  Lords  permitting  such  extension  of  lime  to 
forfeit  the  fairs  to  the  King. 

None  but  takers  for  the  Royal  Family  to  take  anything  from  anyone.    Those  of  the 


one  taking  without  warraut  to  be  treated  i 
It  is  ordained  that  said  Statutes  shall  in  future  be  kept  at  all  points. 


Passage  across  the  Channel  from  Dover  is  to  be  two  shillings  for  a  horseman  and 
sixpence  for  a  footman,  as  formerly.  In  other  places  the  fares  are  to  be  as  in  the 
old  time,  and  no  more. 


be  held  by  the  local  jus 


It  is  again  enacted  that  religious  i 


)  carriage  across  the  seas. 

1  forfeit  to  the  King  double 


All  merchants,  native  and  foreign,  to  be  free  to  sell  anything  anywhere  at  any  time 
to  anyone.  No  foreigner  to  carry  wine  out  of  the  country.  No  one  to  tax  or 
take  from  a  foreign  merchant,  King's  Customs  excepted. 

No  one  to  carry  gold  or  silver  in  coin  or  any  other  form  out  of  the  country  without 
special  license.  Bad  money  imported  to  be  forfeited.  No  coin  to  be  melted,  on 
pain  of  forfeiting  one-half. '  The  blact  money  current  to  be  utterly  excluded,  on 
pain  of  forfeiture.  Informers  to  receive  a  quarter.  Merchants  and  shippers  to  be 
sworn  to  keep  the  law.  Exchanges  to  be  set  up  at  Dover  and  other  places,  and 
Wardens  to  be  appointed  to  fix  rates  of  exchange.  No  pilgrims  to  pass  out  of 
England  except  by  Dover,  on  pain  of  a  year's  imprisonment.  Innkeepers  em- 
powered to  search  their  guests  in  every  port,  and  to  have  a  quarter  the  forfeit 
incurred  for  contravention  of  the  Act. 

Purveyance  of  horses  to  be  made  only  through  the  Sheriffs  of  Counties.  But  tp  this 
Statute  a  footnote' is  apnended:  •■  Howbeit  this  is  hoi  Jen  to  be  no  Statutes  as  it 
appeareth  by  the  Rolls.^' 

Owling  (taking  wool  out  of  the  realm)  made  a  capital  offence.'  Roval  Family 
alone  to  wear  any  but  hoihe-made  cloth,  on  pain  of  toi'feiture  and  further  pun- 
ishment. No  foreign  cloths  to  be  imported.*  ■  Only  Royal  Family,  prelates,  and 
titled  persons  to  wear  fur.  Foreign  cloth-workers  free  to  reside  in  England  under 
the  King's  special  protection. 

The  Treasury  to  send  standard  weights  and  measures  to  every  county.  Inspectors 
to  be  appointed  in  each  county,  with  power  to  punish  offenders.  "  Informers  to 
take  quarter  forfeit. 


Every  person  under  forly.  not  in  trade  nor  having  property,  may  be  compelled  bv 
anyone  to  serve  at  the  wages  paid  in  the  20th  year  of  the  reign ;  the  Lords  to 
have  prior  claim  to  such  service.  Labourers  refusing  to  serve  or  quitting  their 
employment  to  be  imprisoned.  Persons'  paving  higher  wages  to  forfeit  double; 
persons  receiving  it  lo  be  imprisoned.  Persons  selling  food  at  unreasonable 
prices  to  forfeit  double.  If  Mayors  or  Sheriffs  neglect  to  enforce  the  penalties, 
the  Justices  are  to  compel  them  to  pay  treble  the  value.  Anyone  giving  anything 
to  a  beggar  to  be  imprisoned. 


Do.,  c.  6. 
Do.,  c.  8. 


(the  whole  statute). 


Though  a  great  relief  to  the  public,  and  especially  to  merchants, 
the  Act  struck  a  heavy  blow  at  the  King's  revenue,  the  Cus- 
toms being  evaded. 

Led  to  much  oppression  by  officials.  "  Diiers  merchants,  as  well 
foreigners  as  denizens."  ceased  to  bring  cloths  to  market  "to 
the  great  damage  of  the  King  and  all  his  people."  Petition, 
dated  1353,  charges  the  aulnagers  with  corruption. 


absolutely  ineffectual. 


to  be  disregarded.    (See  5  Edw.  Ill 


William  of  Malmsbury  says  that  Gloucester  wine  was  little 
inferior  to  the  wines  of  France?  but  after  these  stringent 


No  effect.    {See  10  Edw.  III.,  st.  2.) 


No  effect :  is  again  and  again  re-enacted. 

The  fairs  in  themselves  did  not  hurt  the  shopkeepers,  but  the 
monopoly  whereby  the  shops  in  the  neighbourhood  were  shui 
up  during  the  fair  for  the  increase  of  the  King's  tolls  and 
dues.    {See  Matthew  Paris.) 


The  money  was  remitted  by  bills  of  exchange,  so  that,  although 
the  Act'to  some  extent  prevented  the  export  of  the  precious 
metals,  to  precisely  that  same  extent  it  prevented  their  im- 

Innkeepers  preferred  their  customers  to  the  forfeit. 


Knyghton  (contemp.)  says.  Wool  lay  unsold  for  years  and  groi 

ers  were  reduced  to  the  greatest  distress. 
Many  Flemings  accepted  the  invitation  and  founded  the  fin 

wool  industries  here. 


Dead  letter.  Commissioners  "performed  their  official  duties 
with  a  very  unpopular  degree  of  severity."  Parly.  Report. 
1819. 

Increafed  the  interest  on  loans  by  increasing  the  risk  of  the 
lender. 

.  St.  a,  states  that  this  ordinance 


The  preamble  to  2.5 


Repealed  in  fact  in  1332  by  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  Staples. 
Specifically  repealed  in  1863. 

The  forfeiture  clause  repealed  in 

1353. 

The  whole  Act  repealed  by  49  Geo. 

in.,  c.  109. 

Amended  by  5  Edw.  III.,  st.  1,  c.  5. 


Re-enacted  and  amended  the  fol- 
lowing year. 
Repealed  1863. 


Rep.  U  &  55  Vic,  c.  59,  s.  3. 


Rep.  by  2  &  3  Will.  IV.,  c.  31 


Forfeit  due  to  innkeepers  raised  from 

a  fourth  to  a  third  by  1"  Edw. 

III..  9  y. 


19  &  20  Vic,  c  64. 
'  Rep.  as  to  foreigners  the  following 

"Rep.  14fidw.'lII.,st.2. 

1860. 

Commissions  abolished  by  18  Edw. 

III.,  St.  1. 

Amended  31.Edw.  III. 


Re-enacted  several  times,  but  always 

inoperative,  was  finally  repealed 

in  1863. 


4.  0 


ANGLO-AMERICAN  ARBITRATION.  141 

American  arbitration.     As  it  is,  I  can  do  no  more  than 
emphatically  express  approval  of  its  aims. 

Savage  as  have  been  the  passions  commonly  causing 
war,  and  great  as  have  been  its  horrors,  it  has,  through- 
out the  past,  achieved  certain  immense  benefits.  From 
it  has  resulted  the  predominance  and  spread  of  the  most 
powerful  races.  Beginning  with  primitive  tribes  it  has 
welded  together  small  groups  into  larger  groups,  and 
again  at  later  stages  has  welded  these  larger  groups  into 
still  larger,  until  nations  have  been  formed.  At  the 
same  time  military  discipline  has  habituated  wild  men 
to  the  bearing  of  restraints,  and  has  initiated  that  system 
of  graduated  subordination  under  which  all  social  life  is 
carried  on.  But  though,  along  with  detestation  of  the 
cruelties  and  bloodshed  and  brutalization  accompanying 
war,  we  must  recognize  these  great  incidental  benefits 
bequeathed  by  it  heretofore,  we  are  shown  that  hence- 
forth there  can  arise  no  such  ultimate  good  to  be  set 
against  its  enormous  evils.  Powerful  types  of  men  now 
possess  the  world;  great  aggregates  of  them  have  been 
consolidated ;  societies  have  been  organized ;  and  through- 
out the  future  the  conflicts  of  nations,  entailing  on 
larger  scales  than  ever  before  death,  devastation,  and 
misery,  can  yield  to  posterity  no  compensating  advan- 
tages. Henceforth  social  progress  is  to  be  achieved,  not 
'  V  systems  of  education,  not  by  the  preaching  of  this  or 
•.^.  religion,  not  by  insistence  on  a  humane  creed  daily 
ed  and  daily  disregarded,  but  only  by  cessation 
u  these  antagonisms  which  keep  alive  the  brutal  ele- 
its  of  human  nature,  and  by  persistence  in  a  peace- 
life  which  gives  unchecked  play  to  the  sympathies. 
n  sur  dry  places,  and  in  various  ways,  I  have  sought  to 
show  that  advance  to  higher  forms  of  man  and  society 


142  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

essentially  depends  on  tlie  decline  of  militancy  and  the 
growth  of  industrialism.  This  I  hold  to  be  a  political 
truth  in  comparison  with  which  all  other  political  truths 
are  insignificant. 

I  need  scarcely  add  that  such  being  my  belief,  I  re- 
joice over  the  taking  of  any  step  which  directly  dimin- 
ishes the  probability  of  war,  and  indirectly  opens  the 
way  to  further  such  steps. 


AGAmST  THE  METEIC   SYSTEM. 

During  the  Parliamentary  Session  of  1896  an  asso- 
ciation which  has  for  some  time  past  sought  to  establish 
the  Metric  System  in  England,  had  obtained  from  the 
Parliamentary  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  a  prom- 
ise that  a  Bill  conforming  to  their  desire  should  be 
presently  introduced.  Holding  strongly  the  opinion  that 
adoption  of  the  Metric  System  is  undesirable,  I  pub- 
lished in  The  Times,  as  special  articles  ^'  Erom  a  Cor- 
respondent," four  letters  setting  forth  the  reasons  for  this 
opinion;  and  immediately  afterwards  issued  these  let- 
ters in  the  form  of  a  pamphlet,  which  was  distributed  to 
all  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  and  a  few  mem- 
bers of  the  House  of  Lords  here,  and  also  to  members 
of  the  United  States  Congress,  before  which  a  Bill  to 
establisli  the  Metric  System  in  America  was  pending. 
The  contents  of  this  pamphlet,  including  certain  ex- 
planatory lines  introducing  the  letters,  are  now  repro- 
duced. 


AGAINST  THE  METEIC  SYSTEM.  Ii3 

On  the  20th  inst.,  in  answer  to  a  question,  Mr.  Bal- 
four implied  that  the  Government  did  not  contemplate 
compulsory  enactment  of  the  metric  system.  At  that 
date  this  pamphlet  was  in  the  press,  and  I  was  at  first 
inclined  to  stay  further  progress;  thinking  that  issue 
of  it  would  be  superfluous.  Second  thoughts,  however, 
led  to  persistence. 

On  the  24:th  March,  at  the  Annual  Meeting  of  the  As- 
sociated Chambers  of  Commerce,  a  motion  urging  adopt- 
ion of  the  metric  system  was  carried;  and  the  Earl  of 
Dudley,  Parliamentary  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Trade, 
responding  to  its  embodied  wish,  announced  that  "  a  Bill 
was  now  in  course  of  preparation  which  would  be  brought 
in  at  no  distant  date,  and  which  would  give  effect  to  the 
wishes  expressed  in  the  motion."  The  provisions  of  such 
a  Bill  should  it  be  brought  forward,  will  be  subject  to 
criticisms  irrespective  of  their  characters  as  compul- 
sory or  permissive.  Hence  it  seems  still  desirable  to 
bring  together,  in  a  convenient  form  for  reference,  the 
facts  and  arguments  which  go  to  show  that  the  metric 
system   is   ill-adapted   for   industrial   and   trading   pur- 


Of  the  four  following  letters,  the  first,  which  dis- 
cusses the  claims  of  the  English  yard  versus  the  Erench 
metre,  may  be  passed  over  by  those  who  have  little  time 
for  reading,  since  it  does  not  essentially  concern  the  main 
issue. 

I. — Advocates  of  the  metric  system  allege  that  all  op- 
position to  it  results  from  ^^  ignorant  prejudice.''  This  is 
far  from  being  the  fact.  There  are  strong  grounds  for 
rational  opposition,  special  and  general;  some  already  as- 
signed and  others  which  remain  to  be  assigned.     I  may 


U4:  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

fitly  put  first  a  carefully-reasoned  expression  of  dissent 
from  a  late  man  of  science  of  liigli  authority. 

In  1863  Sir  John  Herschel  published  an  essay  in 
which,  after  referring  to  an  attempt  made  during  the  pre- 
ceding Session  to  carry  through  Parliament  a  Bill  estab- 
lishing the  French  metric  system  in  this  country,  and  an- 
ticipating that  the  Bill  (said  to  have  been  confirmed  in 
principle)  would  be  again  brought  forward,  he  proceeded 
to  contrast  that  system  with  a  better  one  to  be  reached  by 
making  a  minute  modification  in  our  own  unit  of  meas- 
ure. The  following  extract  will  sufiiciently  indicate  the 
line  of  his  argument: — 

"  Let  us  now  see  how  far  the  French  metre  as  it  stands 
fulfils  the  requirements  of  scientific  and  ideal  perfection. 
It  professes  to  be  the  10,000,000th  part  of  the  quadrant 
of  the  meridian  passing  through  France  from  Dunkirk 
to  Formentera,  and  is,  therefore,  scientifically  speaking, 
a  local  and  national  and  not  a  universal  measure  .  .  . 
The  metre,  as  represented  by  the  material  standard  adopt- 
ed as  its  representative,  is  too  short  by  a  sensible  and 
measurable  quantity,  though  one  which  certainly  might 
be  easily  corrected." 

[In  the  appendix  it  is  shown  that  according  to  the 
latest  measurements  the  error  is  1-1 6  3rd  part  of  an  inch 
on  the  metre.] 

Sir  John  goes  on  to  say  that  "  were  the  question  an 
open  one  what  standard  a  new  nation,  unprovided  with 
one  and  unfettered  by  usages  of  any  sort,  should  select, 
there  could  be  no  hesitation  as  to  its  adoption  (with  that 
very  slight  correction  above  pointed  out)  ";  and  he  then 
continues — 

^'  The  question  now  arising  is  quite  another  thing,  viz. : — 
Whether  we  are  to  throw  overboard  an  existing,  estab- 


AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM.  1^:5 

lished,  and,  so  to  speak,  ingrained  system — adopt  tlie 
metre  as  it  stands  for  our  standard — adopt,  moreover, 
its  decimal  subdivisions,  and  carry  out  the  change  into 
all  its  train  of  consequences,  to  the  rejection  of  our  entire 
system  of  weights,  measures,  and  coins.  If  we  adopt 
the  metre  we  cannot  stop  short  of  this.  It  would  be 
a  standing  reproach  and  anomaly — a  change  for  chang- 
ing's  sake.  The  change,  if  we  make  it,  must  be  com- 
plete and  thorough.  And  this,  in  the  face  of  the 
fact  that  England  is  beyond  all  question  the  nation 
whose  commercial  relations,  both  internal  and  exter- 
nal, are  the  greatest  in  the  world,  and  that  the  Brit- 
ish system  of  measures  is  received  and  used,  not  only 
throughout  the  whole  British  Empire  (for  the  Indian 
^  Hath '  or  revenue  standard  is  defined  by  law  to  be 
18  British  Imperial  inches),  but  throughout  the  whole 
ISTorth  American  continent,  and  (so  far  as  the  meas- 
ure of  length  is  concerned)  also  throughout  the  Rus- 
sian Empire.  .  .  .  Taking  commerce,  population,  and 
area  of  soil  then  into  account,  there  would  seem  to  be 
far  better  reason  for  our  Continental  neighbours  to 
conform  to  our  linear  unit  could  it  advance  the  same 
or  a  better  a  priori  claim,  than  for  the  move  to  come 
from  our  side.  (I  say  nothing  at  present  of  decimaliza- 
tion.) " 

Sir  John  Herschel  then  argues  that  the  10,000,000th 
part  of  the  quadrant  of  a  meridian,  wdiich  is  the  specified 
length  of  the  metre,  is,  on  the  face  of  it,  not  a  good  unit 
of  measure,  inasmuch  as  it  refers  to  a  natural  dimension 
not  of  the  simplest  kind,  and  he  continues  thus : — 

"  Taking  the  polar  axis  of  the  earth  as  the  best  unit  of 
dimension  which  the  terrestrial  spheroid  affords  (a  better 
a  priori  unit  than  that  of  the  metrical  system),  we  have 
seen  that  it  consists  of  41,708,088  imperial  feet,  which, 
reduced  to  inches,  is  500,497,056  imperial  inches.  ]^ow 
this  differs  only  by  2,944  inches,  or  by  82  yards,  from 
500,500,000  such  inches,  and  this  would  be  the  whole 


UG  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

error  on  a  length  of  8,000  miles,  wliich  would  arise  from 
the  adoption  of  this  precise  roimd  number  of  inches  for 
its  length,  or  from  making  the  inch,  so  defined,  our  fun- 
damental unit  of  length. 

After  pointing  out  that  the  calculation  required  for 
correlating  a  dimension  so  stated  with  the  Earth's  axis, 
is  shorter  than  that  required  for  correlating  a  kindred 
dimension  with  the  quadrant  of  a  meridian,  Sir  John 
Herschel  argues  that — 

"  If  we  are  to  legislate  at  all  on  the  subject,  then  the 
enactment  ought  to  be  to  increase  our  present  standard 
yard  (and,  of  course,  all  its  multiples  and  submultiples) 
by  one  precise  thousandth  part  of  their  present  lengths, 
and  we  should  then  be  in  possession  of  a  system  of  linear 
measure  the  purest  and  the  most  ideally  perfect  imagin- 
able. The  change,  so  far  as  relates  to  any  practical  trans- 
action, commercial,  engineering,  or  architectural,  w^ould 
be  absolutely  unfelt,  as  there  is  no  contract  for  work 
even  on  the  largest  scale,  and  no  question  of  ordinary 
mercantile  profit  or  loss,  in  which  one  per  mille  in  meas- 
ure or  in  coin  would  create  the  smallest  difficulty." 

"  Hitherto  I  have  said  nothing  about  our  weights  and 
measures  of  capacity.  I^ow,  as  they  stand  at  present, 
nothing  can  be  more  clumsy  and  awkward  than  the  nu- 
merical connection  between  these  and  our  unit  of  length." 

And  then,  after  pointing  out  the  way  in  which  the 
slight  modification  of  the  unit  of  linear  measure  describ- 
ed by  him,  could  be  readily  brought  into  such  relation 
with  the  measures  of  capacity  and  weight  as  to  regularize 
them,  he  goes  on: — 

"  And  thus  the  change  which  would  place  our  system  of 
linear  measure  on  a  perfectly  faultless  basis  would,  at 
the  same  time,  rescue  our  weights  and  measures  of  capa- 
city from  their  present  utter  confusion." 


AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM.  147 

In  presence  of  the  opinion  thus  expressed,  and  thus 
supported  by  evidence,  we  ought,  I  think,  to  hear  noth- 
ing more  about  ^^  ignorant  prejudice  "  as  the  only  ground 
for  opposition  to  the  metric  system,  now  being  urged 
upon  us.  But,  before  proceeding  to  give  adverse  reasons 
of  my  own,  let  me  quote  a  further  objection — not,  it  may 
be,  of  the  gravest  kind,  but  one  which  must  be  taken  into 
account.  Writing  from  Washington,  Professor  H.  A. 
Hazen,  of  the  United  States  Weather  Bureau,  published 
in  Nature  of  January  2,  this  year,  a  letter  of  which  the 
following  extracts  convey  the  essential  points: — 

^'  The  metric  system  usually  carries  with  it  the  Centi- 
grade scale  on  the  thermometer,  and  here  the  whole  En- 
glish-speaking world  should  give  no  uncertain  sound.  In 
meteorology  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  worse  scale 
than  the  Centigrade.  The  plea  that  we  must  have  just 
100°  between  the  freezing  and  boiling  points  does  not 
hold;  any  convenient  number  of  degrees  would  do.  The 
Centigrade  degree  (l°.8f.)  is  just  twice  too  large  for 
ordinary  studies.  The  worst  difficulty,  however,  is  in 
the  use  of  the  Centigrade  scale  below  freezing.  Any  one 
who  has  had  to  study  figures  half  of  which  have  minus 
signs  before  them  knows  the  amount  of  labour  involved. 
To  average  a  column  of  30  figures  half  of  which  are 
minus  takes  nearly  double  the  time  that  figures  all  on  one 
side  would  take,  and  the  liability  to  error  is  more  than 
twice  as  great.  I  have  found  scores  of  errors  in  foreign 
publications  where  the  Centigrade  scale  was  employed,  all 
due  to  this  most  inconvenient  minus  sign.  If  any  one 
ever  gets  a  '  bee  in  his  bonnet '  on  this  subject  and  desires 
to  make  the  change  on  general  principles  it  is  very  much 
to  be  hoped  that  he  will  write  down  a  column  of  30  fig- 
ures half  below  32°  F.,  then  convert  them  to  the  Centi- 
grade scale,  and  try  to  average  them.  I  am  sure  no  En- 
glish meteorologist  who  has  ever  used  the  Centigrade 
scale  will  ever  desire  to  touch  it." 


14S  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

But,  now  liaving  noted  these  defects,  wliicli  may  per- 
haps be  considered  defects  of  detail,  since  they  do  not 
touch  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  metric  system,  I 
propose,  with  your  permission,  to  show  that  its  funda- 
mental principle  is  essentially  imperfect  and  that  its  faults 
are  great  and  incurable. 

II. — In  reply  to  my  enquiries,  a  French  friend,  mem- 
ber of  the  Conseil  d'Etat,  after  giving  instances  of  noncon- 
formity to  the  metric  system,  ended  by  saying: — ^^  En 
adoptant  le  systeme  metrique  decimal,  on  n'a  pas  fait 
disparaitre  tout  a  fait  les  denominations  anciennes,  mais 
on  en  a  fortement  reduit  I'emploi.'' 

It  is  now  more  than  a  century  since,  in  the  midst  of 
the  French  revolution,  the  metric  system  was  established. 
Adoption  of  it  has  been  in  the  main  compulsory.  As 
French  citizens  have  been  obliged  to  use  francs  and  cen- 
times, so  must  they  have  been  obliged  to  use  the  State- 
authorized  weights  and  measures.  But  the  implication 
of  the  above  statement  is  that  the  old  customs  have  sur- 
vived where  survival  was  possible:  the  people  can  still 
talk  in  sous  and  ask  for  fourths,  and  they  do  so.  Doubt- 
less ^^  ignorant  prejudice  "  will  be  assigned  as  the  cause 
for  this.  But  one  might  have  thought  that,  after  three 
generations,  daily  use  of  the  new  system  would  have  en- 
tailed entire  disappearance  of  the  old,  had  it  been  in  all 
respects  better. 

Allied  evidence  exists.  While  in  the  land  of  its  origin 
the  triumph  of  the  metnc  system  is  still  incomplete,  in 
one  of  the  lands  of  its  partial  adoption,  the  United  States, 
the  system  has  been  departed  from.  It  Avill  be  admitted 
that  men  engaged  in  active  business  are,  by  their  expe- 
rience, rendered  the  best  judges  of  convenience  in  mone- 


AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM.  149 

tary  transactions;  and  it  will  be  admitted  tliat  a  Stock 
Exchange  is,  above  all  places,  tlie  focus  of  business  where 
facilitation  is  most  important.  Well,  what  has  happened 
on  the  ]^ew  York  Stock  Exchange?  Are  the  quotations 
of  prices  in  dollars,  tenths,  and  cents?  Not  at  all.  They 
are  in  dollars,  halves,  quarters,  eighths;  and  the  list  of 
prices  in  American  securities  in  England  shows  that  on 
the  English  Stock  Exchange  quotations  are  not  only  in 
quarters  and  eighths,  but  in  sixteenths  and  even  thirty- 
seconds.  That  is  to  say,  the  decimal  divisions  of  the 
dollar  are  in  both  countries  absolutely  ignored,  and  the 
division  into  parts  produced  by  halving,  re-halving,  and 
again  halving  is  adopted.  Worse  has  happened.  A 
friend  writes: — ^^  When  I  was  in  California  some  20 
years  ago  the  ordinary  usage  was  to  give  prices  in  ^  bits,' 
the  eighth  of  a  dollar — a  ^  long  bit '  was  15  cents,  a  ^  short 
bit '  was  10  cents.  If  one  had  a  long  bit  and  paid  it  one 
got  no  change — if  one  gave  a  short  one  no  supplement 
was  asked."  Thus,  lack  of  appropriate  divisibility  led  to 
inexact  payments — a  retrogression. 

Perhaps  an  imaginary  dialogue  w^ill  most  convenient- 
ly bring  out  the  various  reasons  for  dissent.  Let  us  sup- 
pose that  one  wdio  is  urging  adoption  of  the  metric 
system,  is  put  under  cross-examination  by  a  sceptical  offi- 
cial.    Some  of  his  questions  might  run  thus: — 

What  do  you  propose  to  do  with  the  circle?  At 
present  it  is  divided  into  360  degrees,  each  degree  into  60 
minutes,  and  each  minute  into  60  seconds.  I  suppose 
you  would  divide  it  into  100  degrees,  each  degree  into 
100  minutes,  and  each  of  these  into  100  seconds? 

The  French  have  decimalized  the  quadrant,  but  I 
fear  their  division  will  not  be  adopted.  Astronomical 
observations  throughout  a  long  past  have  been  registered 


150  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

by  the  existing  mode  of  measurement,  and  works  for  nau- 
tical guidance  are  based  upon  it.  It  would  be  impractic- 
able to  alter  this  arrangement. 

You  are  riglit.  The  arrangement  was  practically  dic- 
tated by  IN'ature.  The  division  of  the  circle  was  the  out- 
come of  the  Chaldean  division  of  the  heavens  to  fit  their 
calendar:  a  degree  being,  within  l-60th,  equivalent  to 
a  day's  apparent  motion  of  the  Sun  on  the  ecliptic.  And 
that  reminds  me  that  I  do  not  find  in  your  scheme  any 
proposal  for  re-division  of  the  year.  Why  do  you  not 
make  10  months  instead  of  12? 

A  partial  decimalization  of  the  calendar  was  attempt- 
ed at  the  time  of  the  French  Revolution:  a  week  of  ten 
days  was  appointed,  but  the  plan  failed.  Of  course,  the 
3G5  days  of  the  year  do  not  admit  of  division  into  tenths; 
or  if  ten  months  were  made,  there  could  be  no  tenths  of 
these.  Moreover,  even  were  it  otherwise,  certain  deeply- 
rooted  customs  stand  in  the  way.  Many  trading  trans- 
actions, especially  the  letting  of  houses  and  the  hiring  of 
assistants,  have  brought  the  quarter-year  into  such  con- 
stant use  that  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  introduce  a  re- 
division  of  the  year  into  tenths. 

Just  so;  and  it  occurs  to  me  that  there  is  a  deeper 
reason.  Ignoring  the  slight  ellipticity  of  the  Earth's 
orbit,  a  quarter  of  a  year  is  the  period  in  which  the  Earth 
describes  a  fourth  of  its  annual  journey  round  the  Sun, 
and  the  seasons  are  thus  determined — the  interval  be- 
tween the  shortest  day  and  the  vernal  equinox,  between 
that  and  the  longest  day,  and  so  on  with  the  other  divi- 
sions. 

The  order  of  ITature  is  doubtless  against  us  here. 

It  is  against  you  here  in  a  double  way.  ^Not  only  the 
behaviour  of  the  Earth,  but  also  the  behaviour  of  the 


.   AGAINST  THE  METUIC  SYSTEM.  151 

Moon  conflicts  with  your  sclieme.  By  an  astronomical 
accident  it  happens  tliat  there  are  12  full  moons,  or  ap- 
proximately 12  synodic  lunations,  in  the  year;  and  this, 
first  recognized  by  the  Chaldeans,  originated  the  12- 
month  calendar,  which  civilized  peoples  in  general  have 
adopted  after  compromising  the  disagreements  in  one 
or  other  way.  But  there  is  another  division  of  time  in 
which  you  are  not  so  obviously  thus  restrained.  You 
have  not,  so  far  as  I  see,  proposed  to  substitute  10  hours 
for  12,  or  to  make  the  day  and  night  20  hours  instead  of 
24.     Why  not? 

Centuries  ago  it  might  have  been  practicable  to  do 
this;  but  now  that  time-keepers  have  become  universal 
we  could  not  make  such  a  re-division.  We  might  get  all 
the  church-clocks  altered,  but  people  would  refuse  to  re- 
place their  old  watches  by  new  ones. 

I  fancy  conservatism  will  be  too  strong  for  you  in  an- 
other case — that  of  the  compass.  The  divisions  of  this 
are,  like  many  other  sets  of  divisions,  made  by  halving 
and  re-halving  and  again  halving,  until  32  points  are  ob- 
tained. Is  it  that  the  habits  of  sailors  are  so  fixed  as  to 
make  hopeless  the  adoption  of  decimal  divisions? 

Another  reason  has  prevented — the  natural  relations 
of  the  cardinal  points.  The  intervals  included  between 
them  are  necessarily  four  right  angles,  and  this  precludes 
a  division  into  tenths. 

Exactly.  Here,  as  before,  Mature  is  against  you. 
The  quadrant  results  from  space-relations  which  are  un- 
changeable and  necessarily  impose,  in  this  as  in  other 
cases,  division  into  quarters.  Nature's  lead  has  been  fol- 
lowed by  mankind  in  various  ways.  Beyond  the  quarter 
of  a  year  we  have  the  moon's  four  quarters.  The  quarter 
of  an  hour  is  a  familiar  division,  and  so  is  the  quarter 


152  AGAmST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

of  a  mile.  Then  there  are  the  quartern  loaf,  and  the 
quarter  of  a  hundredweight.  Though  the  yard  is  divid- 
ed into  feet  and  inches,  yet  in  every  draper's  shop  yards 
are  measured  out  in  halves,  quarters,  eighths,  and  six- 
teenths or  nails.  Then  we  have  a  wine  merchant's 
quarter-cask,  we  have  the  fourth  of  a  gallon  or  quart,  and, 
beyond  that,  w^e  have  for  wine  and  beer,  the  quarter  of  a 
quart,  or  half -pint. 

Even  that  does  not  end  the  quartering  of  measures, 
for  at  the  bar  of  a  tavern  quarterns  of  gin,  that  is  quarter- 
pints  of  gin,  are  sold.  Evidently  we  must  have  quarters. 
What  do  you  do  about  them?  Ten  will  not  divide  by 
four. 

The  Americans  have  quarter  dollars. 

And  are  inconsistent  in  having  them.  Just  as  in 
Prance,  notwithstanding  the  metric  system,  they  speak  of 
a  quarter  of  a  litre,  and  a  quarter  of  a  livre,  so  in  the 
United  States,  they  divide  the  dollar  into  quarters,  and  in 
so  doing  depart  from  the  professed  mode  of  division  in 
the  very  act  of  adopting  it — depart  in  a  double  way.  For 
the  tenths  of  the  dollar  play  but  an  inconspicuous  part. 
They  do  not  quote  prices  in  dollars  and  dimes.  I  con- 
tinually see  books  advertised  at  25c.,  Y5c.,  $1.25c., 
$1.75c.,  and  so  forth;  but  I  do  not  see  any  advertised  at 
$1.3  dimes  or  4  dimes,  &c.  So  that  while  not  practically 
using  the  division  theoretically  appointed,  they  use  the 
division  theoretically  ignored. 

It  may  be  somewhat  inconsistent,  but  there  is  no  prac- 
tical inconvenience. 

I  beg  your  pardon.  If  they  had  a  12-division  of  the 
dollar,  instead  of  a  10-di vision,  these  prices  $1.25  and 
$1.75  would  be  $1..3  and  $1..9.  And  not  only  would 
there  be  a  saving  in  speech,  writing,  and  printing,  but 


AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM.  153 

there  would  be  a  saving  in  calculation.  Only  one  column 
of  figures  would  need  adding  up  where  now  there  are 
two  to  add  up;  and,  besides  decreased  time  and  trouble, 
there  would  be  fewer  mistakes.  But  leaving  this  case  of 
the  dollar,  let  us  pass  to  other  cases.  Are  we  in  all 
weights,  all  measures  of  length,  all  areas  and  volumes,  to 
have  no  quarters? 

Quarters  can  always  be  marked  as  .25. 

So  that  in  our  trading  transactions  of  every  kind  we 
are  to  make  this  familiar  quantity,  a  quarter,  by  taking 
two-tenths  and  five-hundredths !  But  now  let  me  ask  a 
further  question — What  about  thirds?  In  our  daily  life 
division  by  three  often  occurs.  K^ot  uncommonly  there 
are  three  persons  to  whom  equal  shares  of  property  have 
to  be  given.  Then  in  talk  about  wills  of  intestates  one 
hears  of  widows'  thirds;  and  in  Acts  of  Parliament  the 
two-thirds  majority  often  figures.  Occasionally  a  buyer 
will  say — ''  A  half  is  more  than  I  want  and  a  quarter  is 
not  enough;  I  will  take  a  third."  Frequently,  too,  of 
medicines,  where  half  a  grain  is  too  much  or  not  enough, 
one-third  of  a  grain  or  two-thirds  of  a  grain  is  ordered. 
Continually  thirds  are  wanted.  How  do  you  arrange? 
Three  threes  do  not  make  ten. 

We  cannot  make  a  complete  third. 

You  mean  we  must  use  a  make-shift  third,  as  a  make- 
shift quarter  is  to  be  used? 

1^0]  unfortunately  that  cannot  be  done.  We  sig- 
nify a  third  by  .3333,  &c. 

That  is  to  say,  you  make  a  third  by  taking  3  tenths, 
plus  3  hundredths,  plus  3  thousandths,  plus  3  ten-thou- 
sandths, and  so  on  to  infinity! 

Doubtless  the  method  is  unsatisfactory,  but  we  can  do 

no  better. 
11 


154  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

Nevertheless  jou  really  tliink  it  desirable  to  adopt 
unixersally  for  measurements  of  weiglit,  length,  area, 
capacity,  value,  a  system  which  gives  us  only  a  make- 
shift quarter  and  no  exact  third  ? 

These  inconveniences  are  merely  set-offs  against  the 
great  conveniences. 

Set-offs  you  call  them!  To  me  it  seems  that  the  in- 
conveniences outweigh  the  conveniences. 

But  surely  you  cannot  deny  those  enormous  evils  en- 
tailed by  our  present  mixed  system,  which  the  proposed 
change  would  exclude. 

I  demur  to  your  assertion.  I  have  shown  you  that 
the  mixed  system  would  in  large  part  remain.  You  can- 
not get  rid  of  the  established  divisions  of  the  circle  and 
the  points  of  the  compass.  You  cannot  escape  from  those 
quarters  which  the  order  of  Xature  in  several  ways  forces 
on  us.  You  cannot  change  the  divisions  of  the  year  and 
the  day  and  the  hour.  It  is  impossible  to  avoid  all  these 
incongruities  by  your  method,  but  here  is  another  by 
which  they  may  be  avoided. 

You  astonish  me.     "What  else  is  possible? 

I  will  tell  you.  We  agree  in  condemning  the  exist- 
ing arrangements  under  which  our  scheme  of  numeration 
and  our  modes  of  calculation  based  on  it,  proceed  in  one 
way,  while  our  various  measures  of  length,  area,  capacity, 
weight,  value,  proceed  in  other  ways.  Doubtless,  the 
two  methods  of  procedure  should  be  unified;  but  how? 
You  assume  that,  as  a  matter  of  course,  the  measure-sys- 
tem should  be  made  to  agree  with  the  numeration-system; 
but  it  may  be  contended  that,  conversely,  the  numeration- 
system  should  be  made  to  agree  with  the  measure-system 
— with  the  dominant  measure-system,  I  mean. 

I  do  not  see  how  that  can  be  done. 


AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM.  155 

Perliaps  you  will  see  if  you  join  me  in  looking  back 
upon  the  origins  of  these  systems.  Unable  to  count  by 
giving  a  name  to  each  additional  unit,  men  fell  into  the 
habit  of  counting  by  groups  of  units  and  compound 
groups.  Ten  is  a  bundle  of  fingers,  as  you  may  still  see 
in  the  Roman  numerals,  where  the  joined  fingers  of  one 
hand  and  the  joined  fingers  of  the  two  hands  are  sym- 
bolized. Then,  above  these,  the  numbering  was  con- 
tinued by  counting  two  tens,  three  tens,  four  tens,  &c.,  or 
20,  30,  40  as  we  call  them,  until  ten  bundles  of  ten  had 
been  reached.  Proceeding  similarly,  these  compound 
bundles  of  tens,  called  hundreds,  were  accumulated  until 
there  came  a  doubly-compound  bundle  of  a  thousand; 
and  so  on.  IN^ow,  this  process  of  counting  by  groups  and 
compound  groups,  tied  together  by  names,  is  equally 
practicable  w^itli  other  groups  than  10.  TVe  may  form 
our  numerical  system  by  taking  a  group  of  12,  then  12 
groups  of  12,  then  12  of  these  compound  groups;  and  so 
on  as  before.  The  12-group  has  an  enormous  advantage 
over  the  10-group.  Ten  is  divisible  only  by  5  and  2. 
Twelve  is  divisible  by  2,  3,  4,  and  6.  If  the  fifth  in  the 
one  case  and  the  sixth  in  the  other  be  eliminated  as  of  no 
great  use,  it  remains  that  the  one  group  has  three  times 
the  divisibility  of  the  other.  Doubtless  it  is  this  great 
divisibility  which  has  made  men  in  such  various  cases 
fall  into  the  habit  of  dividing  into  twelfths.  For  beyond 
the  12  divisions  of  the  zodiac  and  the  originally-asso- 
ciated twelve-month,  and  beyond  the  twelfths  of  the  day, 
and  beyond  those  fourths — sub-multiples  of  12 — which 
in  sundry  cases  ^N'ature  insists  upon,  and  which  in  so  many 
cases  are  adopted  in  trade,  we  have  12  ounces  to  the  pound 
troy,  12  inches  to  a  foot,  12  lines  to  the  inch,  12  sacks  to 
the  last;  and  of  multiples  of  12  we  have  24  grains  to  the 


156  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

2)eiiny weight,  24  slieets  to  the  quire.  Moreover,  large 
sales  of  small  articles  are  habitually  made  by  the  gross 
(12  times  12)  and  great  gross  (12X12X12).  Again,  we 
have  made  our  multiplication  table  go  up  to  12  times  12, 
and  we  habitually  talk  of  dozens.  Now,  though  these 
particular  12-divisions  are  undesirable,  as  being  most  of 
them  arbitrary  and  unrelated  to  one  another,  yet  the  facts 
make  it  clear  that  a  general  system  of  twelfths  is  called 
for  by  trading  needs  and  industrial  needs;  and  such  a 
system  might  claim  something  like  universality,  since 
it  w^ould  fall  into  harmony  wdth  these  natural  divisions 
of  twelfths  and  fourths  which  the  metric  system  neces- 
sarily leaves  outside  as  incongruities. 

But  what  about  the  immense  facilities  wliicli  the 
method  of  decimal  calculation  gives  us?  You  seem  ready 
to  sacrifice  all  these? 

JSTot  in  the  least.  It  needs  only  a  small  alteration  in 
our  method  of  numbering  to  make  calculation  by  groups 
of  12  exactly  similar  to  calculation  by  groups  of  10; 
yielding  just  the  same  facilities  as  those  now  supposed  to 
belong  only  to  decimals.  This  seems  a  surprising  state- 
ment ;  but  I  leave  you  to  think  about  it,  and  if  you  can- 
not make  out  how  it  may  be  I  will  explain  presently. 

III. — The  promised  explanation  may  most  conveni- 
ently be  given  by  reproducing,  w^ith  various  alterations 
and  additions,  a  letter  I  wTote  about  the  matter  last  'No- 
vember  twelvemonth  to  a  distinguished  man  of  science. 
Omitting  the  name,  the  letter  ran  thus : — 

^'  The  enclosed  memoranda  concerning  advantages  to 
be  derived  from  the  use  of  12  as  a  fundamental  number, 
w^ere  written  more  than  50  years  ago,  and  have  since  been 
lying  unused  among  my  papers. 


AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM.  157 

"  I  send  tliem  to  you  because  you  have  lately  been  ex- 
pressing a  strong  opinion  in  favour  of  the  metric  system, 
and  of  course  your  opinion  will  weigli  heavily.  From 
the  days  when  the  accompanying  memoranda  were  set 
down,  I  have  never  ceased  to  regret  the  spreading  adop- 
tion of  a  system  which  has  such  great  defects,  and  I  hold 
that  its  universal  adoption  would  be  an  immense  disaster. 

^'  Of  course  I  do  not  call  in  question  the  great  advan- 
tages to  be  derived  from  the  ability  to  carry  the  method 
of  decimal  calculation  into  quantities  and  values,  and  of 
course  I  do  not  call  in  question  the  desirableness  of  having 
some  rationally-originated  unit  from  which  all  measures 
of  lengths,  weights,  forces,  etc.,  shall  be  derived.  That, 
as  promising  to  end  the  present  chaos,  the  metric  system 
has  merits,  goes  without  saying.  But  I  object  to  it  on 
the  ground  that  it  is  inconvenient  for  various  purposes 
of  daily  life,  and  that  the  conveniences  it  achieves  may 
be  achieved  without  entailing  any  inconveniences. 

^^  One  single  fact  should  suffice  to  give  us  pause. 
This  fact  is  that,  notwithstanding  the  existence  of  the  de- 
cimal notation,  men  have  in  so  many  cases  fallen  into  sys- 
tems of  division  at  variance  with  it,  and  especially  duode- 
cimal division.  ^N'umeration  by  tens  and  multiples  of 
ten  has  prevailed  among  civilized  races  from  early  times. 
What,  then,  has  made  them  desert  this  mode  of  numer- 
ation in  their  tables  of  weights,  measures,  and  values? 
They  cannot  have  done  this  without  a  strong  reason.  The 
strong  reason  is  conspicuous — the  need  for  easy  division 
into  aliquot  parts.  For  a  long  period  they  were  hindered 
in  regularizing  their  weights  and  measures  by  the  cir- 
cumstance that  these  had  been  derived  from  organic 
bodies  and  organic  lengths — the  carat  and  grain,  for  in- 
stance, or  the  cubit,  foot,  and  digit.     Organic  weights 


158  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

and  lengths  thus  derived  were  not  definite  multiples  one 
of  another,  and  where  they  were  approximate  multiples 
the  numbers  of  these  were  irregular — would  not  conform 
to  any  system.  But  there  early  began,  as  among  the 
Chaldeans,  arrangements  for  bringing  these  natural  meas- 
ures into  commensurable  relations.  By  sexagesimal  di- 
vision (GO  being  the  first  number  divisible  both  by  10  and 
12)  the  Babylonian  cubit  was  brought  into  relation  with 
the  Babylonian  foot.  The  stages  of  change  from  nation 
to  nation  and  from  age  to  age,  cannot,  of  course,  be 
traced;  but  it  suffices  to  recognize  the  fact  that  the  ten- 
dency has  been  towards  systems  of  easily-divisible  quan- 
tities— the  avoirdupois  pound  of  16  ounces,  for  instance, 
which  is  divisible  into  halves,  into  quarters,  into  eighths. 
But,  above  all,  men  have  gravitated  towards  a  12-division, 
because  12  is  more  divisible  into  aliquot  parts  than  any 
other  number — halves,  quarters,  thirds,  sixths;  and  their 
reason  for  having  in  so  many  cases  adopted  the  duode- 
cimal division,  is  that  this  divisibility  has  greatly  facili- 
tated their  transactions.  When  counting  by  twelves  in- 
stead of  by  tens,  they  have  been  in  far  fewer  cases 
troubled  by  fragmentary  numbers.  There  has  been  an 
economy  of  time  and  mental  effort.  These  practical  ad- 
vantages are  of  greater  importance  than  the  advantages 
of  theoretical  completeness.  Thus,  even  were  there  no 
means  of  combining  the  benefits  achieved  by  a  method 
like  that  of  decimals  with  the  benefits  achieved  by  duode- 
cimal division,  it  would  still  be  a  question  whether  the 
benefits  of  the  one  with  its  evils  were  or  were  not  to  be 
preferred  to  the  benefits  of  the  other  with  its  evils — a  ques- 
tion to  be  carefully  considered  before  making  any  change. 
"  But  now  the  important  fact,  at  present  ignored,  and 
to  which  I  draw  your  attention,  is  that  it  is  perfectly  pos- 


AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM.  150 

sible  to  have  all  the  facilities  which  a  method  of  notation 
like  that  of  decimals  gives,  along  with  all  the  facilities 
which  duodecimal  division  gives.  It  needs  only  to  intro- 
duce two  additional  digits  for  10  and  11  to  unite  the  ad- 
vantages of  both  systems.  The  methods  of  calculation 
which  now  go  along  w^ith  the  decimal  system  of  numera- 
tion would  be  equally  available  were  12  made  the  basic 
number  instead  of  10.  In  consequence  of  the  association 
of  ideas  established  in  them  in  early  days  and  perpetually 
repeated  throughout  life,  nearly  all  people  suppose  that 
there  is  something  natural  in  a  method  of  calculation  by 
tens  and  compoundings  of  tens.  But  I  need  hardly  say 
that  this  current  notion  is  utterly  baseless.  The  existing 
system  has  resulted  from  the  fact  that  we  have  five  fingers 
on  each  hand.  If  we  had  had  six  on  each  there  would 
never  have  been  any  trouble,  ^o  man  w^ould  ever  have 
dreamt  of  numbering  by  tens,  and  the  advantages  of  duo- 
decimal division  with  a  mode  of  calculation  like  that  of 
decimals,  would  have  come  as  a  matter  of  course. 

"  Even  while  writing  I  am  still  more  struck  w^ith  the 
way  in  which  predominant  needs  have  affected  our  usages. 
Take  our  coinage  as  an  example.  Beginning  at  the  bot- 
tom we  have  the  farthing  (^  penny),  the  halfpenny  and 
penny  (or  one-twelfth  of  a  shilling);  next  we  have  the 
threepenny  piece  (J  shilling),  the  Qd.  piece  (J  shilling), 
and  the  shilling;  and  then  above  them  we  have  the 
eighth  of  a  pound  (2s.  Qd.),  the  quarter  of  a  pound  (5s.), 
and  half-pound  (10s.).  That  is  to  say,  daily  usage  has 
made  us  gravitate  into  a  system  of  doubling  and  again 
doubling  and  re-doubling;  and  when,  until  recently, 
there  existed  the  4:d.  piece,  we  had  the  convenience  of  a 
third  as  well  as  a  half  and  a  quarter — a  convenience 
which  would  have  been  retained  but  for  the  likeness  of 


160  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

the  3d.  and  4J.  coins.  And  observe  that  this  system  of 
multiples  and  sub-multiples  has  its  most  conspicuous  illus- 
tration in  the  commonest  of  all  processes — retail  pay- 
ments— and  that,  too,  in  the  usages  of  a  nation  which  is 
above  all  others  mercantile. 

[Since  this  letter  was  written  I  have  been  struck  by 
the  fact  that  the  ancient  wise  men  of  the  East  and  the 
modern  working  men  of  the  West,  have  agreed  upon  the 
importance  of  great  divisibility  in  numerical  groups. 
The  Chaldean  priests,  to  whom  we  owe  so  much,  doubtless 
swayed  in  part  by  their  astronomical  arrangements, 
adopted  the  sexagesimal  system  of  numeration,  which  at 
the  same  time  facilitates  in  a  special  manner  the  division 
into  aliquot  parts.  For  60  may  be  divided  by  ten  differ- 
ent numbers— 2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  10,  12,  15,  20,  30.  From 
this  significant  fact  turn  now  to  the  fact  presented  in  our 
ordinary  foot-rule.  Each  of  its  12  inches  is  halved  and 
re-halved,  giving  halves,  quarters,  and  eighths.  And  then, 
if  we  consider  the  sub-divided  foot  as  a  whole,  it  gives 
us  ten  sets  of  aliquot  parts.  Beyond  its  12ths  the  divi- 
sions yield  J,  J,  i,  i,  i  (IJ  inch),  -jV  (3  inch),  ^  (i  inch), 
•jV  (f  inch),  and  ^  (^  inch).  And  this  ordinary  mode 
of  dividing  the  foot-rule  results  from  the  experience  of 
centuries;  for  builders,  carpenters,  and  mechanics,  al- 
ways buying  footrules  which  best  serve  their  needs,  have 
gradually  established  the  most  useful  set  of  divisions. 
And  yet,  though  the  early  man  of  science  and  the  modern 
men  of  practice  are  at  one  in  recognizing  the  importance 
of  great  divisibility,  it  is  proposed  to  establish  a  form 
of  measure  characterized  by  relative  indivisibility!] 

"  'Now  it  seems  to  me  that  the  two  facts — first,  that  in 
early  days  men  diverged  from  the  decimal  division  into 
modes  of  division  which  furnished  conveuicnt  aliquot 


AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM.  161 

parts,  and  second,  that  where,  as  in  America,  the  decimal 
system  has  been  adopted  for  coinage,  they  have  in  the 
focus  of  business  fallen  into  the  use  of  aliquot  parts  in 
spite  of  the  tacit  governmental  dictation — not  only  prove 
the  need  for  this  mode  of  division,  but  imply  that,  if  the 
metric  system  were  universally  established,  it  would  be 
everywhere  traversed  by  other  systems.  To  ignore  this 
need,  and  to  ignore  the  consequences  of  disregarding  it, 
is  surely  unwise.  Inevitably  the  result  must  be  a  pre- 
vention of  the  desired  unity  of  method:  there  will  be 
perpetual  inconveniences  from  the  conflict  of  two  irre- 
concilable systems.  [At  the  time  this  prophecy  was 
made,  I  did  not  know  that  in  California  the  "  long  bits  " 
and  "  short  bits  "  of  the  dollar,  already  illustrated  this 
conflict  of  systems  and  its  evils.] 

"  I  fully  recognize  the  difiiculties  that  stand  in  the 
way  of  making  such  changes  as  those  indicated — difficul- 
ties greater  than  those  implied  by  the  changes  which 
adoption  of  the  metric  system  involves.  The  two  have 
in  common  to  overcome  the  resistance  to  altering  our 
tables  of  weights,  measures,  and  values;  and  they  both 
have  the  inconvenience  that  all  distances,  quantities,  and 
values,  named  in  records  of  the  past,  must  be  differently 
expressed.  But  there  would  be  futher  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  a  12-notation  system.  To  prevent  confusion  dif- 
ferent names  and  different  symbols  would  be  needed  for 
the  digits,  and  to  acquire  familiarity  with  these,  and 
with  the  resulting  multiplication-table  would,  of  course, 
be  troublesome :  perhaps  not  more  troublesome,  however, 
than  learning  the  present  system  of  numeration  and  cal- 
culation as  carried  on  in  another  language.  There  would 
also  be  the  serious  evil  that,  throughout  all  historical 
statements,  the  dates  would  have  to  be  differently  ex- 


102  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

pressed;  tliough  this  inconvenience,  so  long  as  it  lasted, 
Avoiild  be  without  difficulty  met  by  enclosing  in  paren- 
thesis in  each  case  the  equivalent  number  in  the  old  no- 
tation. But,  admitting  all  this,  it  may  still  be  reasonably 
held  that  it  would  be  a  great  misfortune  were  there  estab- 
lished for  all  peoples  and  for  all  time  a  very  imperfect 
system,  when  with  a  little  more  trouble  a  perfect  system 
might  be  established.'' 

Thus  far  the  letter.  And  now  let  me  sum  up  the  evi- 
dence. Professedly  aiming  to  introduce  uniformity  of 
method,  the  metric  system  cannot  be  brought  into  har- 
mony with  certain  unalterable  divisions  of  space  nor  with 
certain  natural  divisions  of  time,  nor  with  the  artificial 
divisions  of  time  which  all  civilized  men  have  adopted. 
As  10  is  divisible  only  by  5  and  2  (of  which  the  resulting 
fifth  is  useless),  its  divisibility  is  of  the  smallest;  and 
having  only  a  makeshift  fourth  and  no  exact  third,  it 
will  not  lend  itself  to  that  division  into  aliquot  parts  so 
needful  for  the  purposes  of  daily  life.  From  this  indi- 
visibility it  has  resulted  that,  tliough  men  from  the  begin- 
ning had  in  their  ten  fingers  the  decimal  system  ready 
made,  they  have,  in  proportion  as  civilization  has  pro- 
gressed, adopted,  for  purposes  of  measurement  and  ex- 
change, easily  divisible  groups  of  units;  and  in  a  recent 
case,  where  the  10-division  of  money  has  been  imposed 
upon  them,  they  have,  under  pressure  of  business  needs, 
abandoned  it  for  the  system  of  division  into  halves,  quart- 
ers, eighths,  sixteenths.  On  the  other  hand,  the  number 
12  is  unique  in  its  divisibility — yields  two  classes  of  ali- 
quot parts;  and  for  this  reason  has  been  in  so  many  cases 
adopted  for  weights,  measures,  and  values.  At  the  same 
time  it  harmonizes  with  those  chief  divisions  of  time 
which  Nature  has  imposed  upon  us  and  with  the  artifi- 


AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM.  1G3 

cial  divisions  of  time  by  which  men  have  supplemented 
them;  while  its  sub-multiple,  4,  harmonizes  with  certain 
unalterable  divisions  of  space,  and  with  those  divisions 
into  quarters  which  men  use  in  so  many  cases.  Mean- 
while, if  two  new  digits  for  10  and  11  be  used,  there  arises 
a  system  of  calculation  perfectly  parallel  to  the  system 
known  as  decimals,  and  yielding  just  the  same  facilities 
for  computation — sometimes,  indeed,  greater  facilities, 
for,  as  shown  in  the  memoranda  named  in  the  above 
letter,  it  is  even  better  for  certain  arithmetical  processes. 

Do  I  think  this  system  will  be  adopted?  Certainly 
not  at  present — certainly  not  for  generations.  In  our 
days  the  mass  of  people,  educated  as  well  as  uneducated, 
think  only  of  immediate  results:  their  imaginations  of 
remote  consequences  are  too  shadowy  to  influence  their 
acts.  Little  effect  will  be  produced  upon  them  by  show- 
ing that,  if  the  metric  system  should  be  established  uni- 
versally, myriads  of  transactions  every  day  will  for  untold 
thousands  of  years  be  impeded  by  a  very  imperfect  sys- 
tem. But  it  is,  I  think,  not  an  unreasonable  belief  that 
further  intellectual  progress  may  bring  the  conviction 
that  since  a  better  system  would  facilitate  both  the 
thoughts  and  actions  of  men,  and  in  so  far  diminish  the 
friction  of  life  throughout  the  future,  the  task  of  estab- 
lishing it  should  be  undertaken. 

Hence  I  contend  that  adoption  of  the  metric  system, 
while  it  would  entail  a  long  period  of  trouble  and  confu- 
sion, would  increase  the  obstacles  to  the  adoption  of  a 
perfect  system — perhaps  even  rendering  them  insuper- 
able— and  that,  therefore,  it  will  be  far  better  to  submit 
for  a  time  to  the  evils  which  our  present  mixed  system 
entails. 

P.S. — A  mathematician  and  astronomer,  who  writes 


164  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

— "  I  am  much  interested  in  your  letters  and  agree  witli 
almost  everytliing/'  makes  some  comments.  He  says: — 
'^  It  lias  always  been  an  astonishing  thing  to  me  that  the 
advocates  of  decimalization  do  not  perceive  that  its  only 
advantage  is  in  computation.  In  every  other  process  it 
is  a  detriment."  Concerning  the  12-notation,  he  re- 
marks that  ''  the  advantages  are  notorious  to  all  mathe- 
maticians." Apparently  less  impressed  than  I  am  with 
the  advance  of  knowledge  from  uncivilized  times  to  our 
own  and  the  breaking  down  of  habits,  now  going  on  with 
accelerating  rapidity,  he  does  not  share  the  expectation 
that  the  12-notation  '^  will  ever  be  adopted  in  practice  ": 
the  obstacles  to  the  change  being  too  great.  But  without 
opposing  the  metric  system,  as  threatening  to  stand  in  the 
way  of  a  more  perfect  system,  he  opposes  it  as  intrinsically 
undesirable,  saying: — ^'  I  think  that  all  that  can  be  done 
is  to  make  our  coinage  and  measures  as  little  decimal  as 
possible,  and  our  computation  as  decimal  as  may  be." 

IV. — From  one  who  every  month  has  to  act  as  audi- 
tor, I  have  received  a  letter  in  which  he  says: — "  I  had  to 
go  over  more  than  £20,000  of  accounts  yesterday  and 
was  very  thankful  that  it  was  not  in  francs." 

This  statement,  coming  from  a  man  of  business,  has 
suggested  to  me  the  question — By  whose  advice  is  it  that 
the  metric  system  of  weights,  measures,  and  values  is  to 
be  adopted  ?  Is  it  by  the  advice  of  those  who  spend  their 
lives  in  weighing  and  measuring  and  receiving  payments 
for  goods?  Is  it  that  the  men  who  alone  are  concerned 
in  portioning  out  commodities  of  one  or  other  kind  to 
customers  and  who  have  every  minute  need  for  using  this 
or  that  division  or  sub-division  of  weights  or  measures, 
have  demanded  to  use  the  decimal  system?     Far  from  it. 


AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM.  165 

I  venture  to  say  that  in  no  case  has  the  retail  trader  been 
consulted.  There  lies  before  me  an  imposing  list  of  the 
countries  that  have  followed  the  lead  of  France.  It  is 
headed  "  Progress  of  the  Metric  System.''  It  might  fitly 
have  been  headed  ''  Progress  of  Bureaucratic  Coercion." 
When  fifty  years  after  its  nominal  establishment  in 
France,  the  metric  system  was  made  compulsory  it  w\as 
not  because  those  who  had  to  measure  out  commodities 
over  the  counter  wished  to  use  it  but  because  the  Govern- 
ment commanded  them  to  do  so;  and  when  it  was  adopt- 
ed in  Germany  under  the  Bismarckian  regime,  we  may 
be  sure  that  the  opinions  of  shopkeepers  were  not  asked. 
Similarly  elsewhere,  its  adoption  has  resulted  from  the 
ofiicial  will  and  not  from  the  popular  will. 

Why  has  this  happened  ?  For  an  answer  w^e  must  go 
back  to  the  time  of  the  French  Eevolution,  when  scien- 
tific men  w^ere  entrusted  with  the  task  of  forming  a  ra- 
tional system  of  weights,  measures,  and  values  for  uni- 
versal use.  The  idea  was  a  great  one,  and,  allowing  for 
the  fundamental  defect  on  which  I  have  been  insisting, 
it  was  admirably  carried  out.  As  this  defect  does  not  di- 
minish its  great  convenience  for  scientific  purposes  the 
system  has  been  gradually  adopted  by  scientific  men  all 
over  the  world :  the  great  advantage  being  that  measure- 
ments registered  by  a  scientific  man  of  one  nation  are 
without  any  trouble  made  intelligible  to  men  of  other 
nations.  Evidently  moved  by  the  desire  for  human  wel- 
fare at  large,  scientific  men  have  been  of  late  years  urg- 
ing that  the  metric  system  should  be  made  universal,  in 
the  belief  that  immense  advantages,  like  those  which  they 
themselves  find,  w^ill  be  found  by  all  who  are  engaged 
in  trade.  Here  comes  in  the  error.  They  have  identi- 
fied two  quite  different  requirements.     For  what  pur- 


lOG  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

pose  docs  tlie  iiiaii  of  science  use  the  metric  system?  For 
processes  of  measurement.  For  what  purpose  is  the 
trader  to  use  it  ?  For  processes  of  measurement  2)lus  pro- 
cesses of  exchange.  This  additional  element  alters  the 
problem  essentially.  It  matters  not  to  a  chemist  whether 
the  volumes  he  specifies  in  cubic-centimetres  or  the 
Aveights  he  gives  in  grammes,  are  or  are  not  easily  divisi- 
ble with  exactness.  AVhether  the  quantities  of  liquids  or 
gases  which  the  physicist  states  in  litres  can  or  cannot  be 
readily  divided  into  aliquot  parts  is  indifferent.  And  to 
the  morphologist  or  microscopist  who  writes  down  dimen- 
sions in  sub-divisions  of  the  metre,  the  easy  divisibility  of 
the  lengths  he  states  is  utterly  irrelevant.  But  it  is  far 
otherwise  with  the  man  who  all  daylong  has  to  portion  out 
commodities  to  customers  and  receive  money  in  return. 
To  satisfy  the  various  wants  of  those  multitudes  whose 
purchases  are  in  small  quantities,  he  needs  measures  that 
fall  into  easy  divisions  and  a  coinage  which  facilitates 
calculation  and  the  giving  of  change.  Force  him  to 
do  his  business  in  tenths  and  he  w^ll  inevitably  be  im- 
peded. 

"  But  you  forget  that  the  metric  system  is  approved 
by  many  mercantile  men  and  that  its  adoption  is  urged 
by  Chambers  of  Commerce."  'Noj  I  have  not  forgotten; 
and  if  I  had  I  should  have  been  reminded  of  the  fact  by 
the  fears  now  expressed  that  our  commerce  will  suffer  if 
we  do  not  follow  in  the  steps  of  sundry  other  nations. 
The  fears  are  absurd.  French  and  German  merchants, 
when  sending  goods  to  England,  find  no  difficulty  in 
marking  them  or  invoicing  them  in  English  measures. 
And  if  English  merchants  imply  that  they  are  too  stupid 
to  follow  the  example  in  a  converse  way,  they  can  scarcely 
expect  to  be  believed.     Surely  the  manufacturers  who 


AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM.  107 

supply  tliem  with  piece-goods  will  make  these  up  in  so 
many  metres  instead  of  in  so  many  yards  if  asked  to  do 
so;  and  similarly  in  all  cases.  Or  if  not,  it  needs  but  a 
table  on  the  wall  in  the  clerks'  office,  giving  in  parallel 
columns  the  equivalents  of  quantity  in  English  denomi- 
nations and  French  denominations,  to  make  easy  the 
needful  invoicing  and  labelling.  But  it  is  not  on  this 
flimsiest  of  reasons  that  I  wish  chiefly  to  comment.  The 
fact  here  to  be  specially  emphasized  is  that  merchants 
are  not  in  the  least  concerned  with  the  chief  uses  of  the 
metric  system.  Their  bales  and  chests  and  casks  contain 
large  quantities — dozens  of  yards,  hundredweights,  gal- 
lons. They  do  not  deal  with  sub-divisions  of  these. 
Whether  the  retailer  is  or  is  not  facilitated  in  portioning 
out  these  large  quantities  into  small  quantities  is  a  ques- 
tion having  no  business  interest  for  them.  More  than 
this  is  true.  Xot  only  have  they  never  in  their  lives  mea- 
sured out  fractional  amounts  in  return  for  small  sums 
of  money,  but  they  have  rarely  w^itnessed  the  process. 
Their  domestic  supplies  are  obtained  by  deputy,  usually 
in  considerable  quantities;  and  neither  behind  the  coun- 
ter nor  before  it  have  they  with  frequency  seen  the  need 
for  easy  divisibility  into  aliquot  parts.  Their  testimony 
is  supposed  to  be  that  of  practical  men,  while  in  respect 
of  the  essential  issue — the  use  of  weights  and  measures 
for  retail  trade — they  have  had  no  practice  whatever. 

See  then  the  strange  position.  The  vast  majority  of 
our  population  consists  of  working  people,  people  of  nar- 
row incomes,  and  the  minor  shopkeepers  who  minister  to 
their  wants.  And  these  wants  daily  lead  to  myriads  of 
purchases  of  small  quantities  for  small  sums,  involving 
fractional  divisions  of  measures  and  money — measuring 
transactions  probably  fifty  times  as  numerous  as  those 


168  AGAINST  THE   METRIC  SYSTEM. 

of  the  men  of  science  and  the  wholesale  traders  put  to- 
gether. These  two  small  classes,  however,  unfamiliar 
with  retail  buying  and  selling,  have  decided  that  they  will 
be  better  carried  on  by  the  metric  system  than  by  the  ex- 
isting system.  Those  who  have  no  experimental  knowl- 
edge of  the  matter  propose  to  regulate  those  who  have! 
The  methods  followed  by  the  experienced  arc  to  be  re- 
arranged by  the  inexperienced! 

Intentionally  or  unintentionally  those  who  have  bad 
cases  to  defend  very  commonly  raise  false  issues.  It  has 
been  so  in  this  case.  Such  responses  as  I  have  seen  to  the 
foregoing  arguments  have  assumed  or  asserted  that  I  up- 
hold our  existing  system  of  weights,  measures,  and  mon- 
eys; and  they  assert  this  because  I  have  pointed  to  var- 
ious conveniences  which  these  have.  But  if  this  ascrip- 
tion does  not  result  from  a  wilful  misrepresentation,  it 
results  from  an  unintelligent  attention  to  the  argument. 
The  chaotic  character  of  our  modes  of  specifying  quan- 
tities is  as  manifest  to  me  as  to  the  metricists.  When 
instancing  as  convenient  these  or  those  tables  now  in  use, 
I  have  referred  to  the  mode  of  division;  not  at  all  in- 
tending to  imply  approval  of  the  particular  sizes  or 
amounts  of  the  divisions :  these  being  In  many  cases  very 
undesirable. 

All  who  do  not  perversely  misinterpret  must  surely  re- 
cognize my  thesis  as  having  been  that,  rather  than  estab- 
lish a  fundamentally  imperfect  system  based  upon  10  as 
a  radix,  it  will  be  better  to  wait  until  we  can  change  our 
system  of  numeration  into  one  with  12  as  a  radix;  and 


AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM.  160 

tlieu  on  tliat  to  base  our  system  of  weiglits,  measures, 
and  values:  tolerating  present  inconveniences  as  well  as 
we  may.  Opponents  do  not  deny  that  a  12-system  of  nu- 
meration would  be  better  than  is  tlie  10-system,  and  do 
not  deny  that  weights,  measures,  and  values  would  be 
more  conveniently  expressed  in  terms  of  a  12-system. 
Their  contention  is  that  the  change  to  a  12-system  of  nu- 
meration is  not  practicable.  Tacitly  they  assume  that  be- 
cause people  are  not  now  sufficiently  intelligent  to  per- 
ceive its  advantages,  and  to  take  the  trouble  of  making 
the  needful  changes,  they  never  will  be  sufficiently  in- 
telligent. 

It  is  strange  that  with  past  experiences  before  them 
their  imagination  should  thus  fail  them.  See  what  les- 
sons history  reads  us.  If  our  cannibal  ancestors,  who  in 
the  forests  of  ^N'orthern  Europe  two  thousand  or  more 
years  ago  sheltered  in  wigwams  and  clothed  themselves 
in  skins,  had  been  told  that  some  of  their  descendants 
would  live  in  massive  towers  of  stone  and  cover  their  bod- 
ies with  metal  plates,  explanations,  even  could  they  have 
been  understood,  w^ould  have  left  them  utterly  incredul- 
ous. Or,  again,  if  the  mediseval  barons  had  been  told 
that  in  a  few  centuries  after  their  deaths,  nobles,  instead 
of  needing  castles  and  armour,  would  live  in  houses  which 
even  a  solitary  thief  could  break  into,  and  would  walk 
about  unarmed  without  attendants,  they  would  have 
thought  their  informant  insane.  Yet  with  such  cases  be- 
fore them,  cultivated  classes  in  our  own  day  suppose  that 

future  usages  will  be  like  present  ones,  and  that  the  cul- 
13 


170  AGAINST  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM. 

tiirCj  ideas,  and  sentiments  now  prevailing  will  always 
prevail;  and  they  suppose  this  though  men's  feelings 
and  thoughts  have  become  more  plastic  than  they  ever 
were  before.  They  cannot  conceive  that  hereafter  people 
may  think  it  w^ortli  while  to  make  a  revolution  (not  much 
more  troublesome  than  that  which  they  advocate)  for  the 
purpose  of  greatly  facilitating  the  billions  of  transactions, 
commercial,  industrial,  and  other,  daily  gone  through  by 
mankind. 

If,  as  seems  probable,  they  should  have  their  way — if 
the  Act  of  Parliament  just  ]Dassed,  giving  permission  to 
use  the  Metric  System,  should  presently  be  followed,  as 
they  intend  it  to  be,  by  an  Act  making  the  use  of  the 
Metric  System  compulsory — if  in  the  United  States  as 
well  as  in  England  and  it  colonies,  governments  prompt- 
ed by  bureaucracies,  but  not  consulting  the  people  and 
clearly  against  their  wishes,  should  make  universal  this 
gravely  defective  system,  very  possibly  it  will  remain 
thereafter  unalterable.  When  the  trade  within  each  na- 
tion as  well  as  all  international  commerce  has  been  uni- 
fied in  method,  the  obstacles  to  a  radical  change  may  be 
insuperable;  even  though  most  should  come  to  see  the 
great  superiority  of  another  method.  And  should  this 
happen,  then  men  of  the  future  looking  back  on  men  of 
the  present  will  say  of  them  that,  having  before  them  a 
system  which  they  recognized  as  relatively  perfect,  they 
deliberately  imposed  a  relatively  imperfect  system  on  all 
mankind  for  all  time. 


THE  "NET-PEICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING.     171 


the    "net-peice"    system    of    book- 
selli:ntg. 

In  1892  tliere  was  commenced  a  movement  for  re- 
estaLlishing  tlie  system  of  fixed  retail  prices  for  books — 
a  system  wliicli  in  1852  had  been  abolished  by  agreement 
between  authors,  publishers,  and  the  book-trade.  A  re- 
versal of  the  free-trade  policy  which,  whether  or  not  bene- 
ficial to  dealers  in  books,  had  proved  beneficial  alike  to 
authors  and  the  public  threatened  to  be  a  disaster,  and 
I  was  prompted  to  do  something  towards  making  known 
the  impending  evils.  To  this  end  I  sent  to  The  Times 
the  following  communication  which,  under  the  title  of 
"  Publishers,  Booksellers,  and  the  Public,"  made  its  ap- 
pearance as  "  From  a  Correspondent  "  on  October  21, 
1894. 

Amid  various  social  changes  conspicuous  enough  to 
attract  public  attention,  there  has  recently  commenced 
an  unobstrusive  change  which,  trivial  as  it  may  appear 
to  many,  is  likely  to  produce  serious  results.  It  is  a 
change  which  affects  simultaneously  the  interests  of  book- 
buyers  and  of  authors.  That  the  nature  of  it  may  be 
fully  understood,  the  system  in  force  forty  odd  years  ago, 
unknown  to  most  and  forgotten  by  others,  must  be  re- 
called. 

In  1852  a  crisis  in  the  book-trade  was  produced  by  a 
j^ublished  account  of  the  system  established  for  the  be- 


172    THE   *' NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING. 

iiclit  of  booksellers.  Details  aside,  tlie  effect  of  tins 
system,  as  shown  by  a  letter  wliicli  appeared  in  The  Times 
on  April  5,  1852,  was  that,  supposing  a  book  to 
be  advertised  at  12s.,  the  sum  of  7s.  4d.  went  to  pay  for 
the  cost  of  production,  mental  and  mechanical,  and  4s. 
8d.  went  to  pay  for  conveyance  to  the  reader.  While 
60  per  cent,  had  to  cover  the  charges  for  type-setting, 
press-work,  paper,  binding,  advertising,  and  author's 
2:>rofit,  40  per  cent,  was  charged  for  porterage!  The 
*'  Committee  of  the  Book  Trade,'^  avowedly  to  protect 
trade  interests,  excommunicated  all  who  sold  books  at 
lower  rates  of  profit  than  those  prescribed.  Any  one  who 
disobeyed  was  prevented,  when  possible,  from  obtaining 
supplies  of  books  for  sale;  and  occasionally  recalcitrant 
retailers  were  thus  ruined.  Meanwhile,  there  were  a  few 
retailers  who  successively  resisted  the  dictation,  and  main- 
tained a  chronic  feud  with  the  committee.  But  their 
success  qualified  only  in  small  measure  the  result 
achieved,  which  was  that  of  raising  the  prices  of  books 
to  amounts  considerably  above  those  needful  to  yield  the 
retail  booksellers  adequate  profits.  In  The  Times  for 
April  16  there  was  published  a  leading  article  adverse 
to  the  proceedings  of  the  combination. 

Shortly  afterwards  a  meeting  of  authors  was  held, 
presided  over  by  Mr.  Charles  Dickens  and  attended  by 
leading  representatives  of  science  and  literature,  whose 
names  were  in  those  days  familiar.  Eesolutions  condem- 
natory of  the  regulations  enforced  by  the  Booksellers' 
Association  were  passed,  and  a  conflict  with  the  Asso- 
ciation arose.  Yery  soon  an  arbitration  was  agreed  upon, 
and  Lord  Campbell,  Dean  Milman,  and  Mr.  Grote  were 
chosen  as  arbitrators.  They  gave  their  decision  in  favour 
of  the  authors,  and  the  coercive  regulations  were  forth- 


THE   "NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING.     173 

with  abolished.  That  is  to  saj,  while  the  rates  of  profit 
allowed  to  booksellers  the  same,  the  enforcement  of  those 
rates  ceased.  The  retail  distributor  was  no  longer  perse- 
cuted for  making  unauthorized  discounts. 

All  know  what  has  since  happened,  or  rather  all  know 
what  have  been  the  usages  for  the  last  generation,  though 
they  may  not  know  how  they  arose.  The  practice  of 
allowing  a  discount  of  2d.  in  the  Is.  from  the  advertised 
price  of  a  book  was  quickly  established,  and  after  a  time 
the  discount  was  by  many,  and  eventually  by  most,  re- 
tailers increased  to  3d.  in  the  Is.,  or  25  per  cent.  That 
benefit  has  resulted  cannot  well  be  questioned.  Decrease 
in  the  price  of  a  book  from,  say,  12s.  to  9s.  must  have 
added  considerably  to  the  number  of  copies  sold.  And, 
while  readers  have  gained  by  this  greater  accessibility, 
authors  have  gained  by  the  increased  sales;  for  the 
author's  profit  per  copy  has  remained  practically  the 
same.  It  may  be  true  that  the  cheapening  of  books  has 
not  been  wholly  advantageous.  The  wider  diffusion 
given  to  sensational  and  trashy  literature  has  been  an  evil. 
But  English  classics  of  every  kind  have  been  brought 
within  the  reach  of  all  by  the  issue  of  multitudinous  edi- 
tions at  extremely  low  prices.  There  has  been  even  a 
more  important  effect.  Grave  but  enlightening  books, 
scientific,  technical,  or  philosophical,  and  volumes  of  dry 
but  instructive  facts,  have  been  spread  abroad,  and  many 
such  have  been  brought  into  existence  which  previously 
could  not  have  existed.  While  the  sales  of  them  were 
narrowed  by  artificially  enhanced  prices,  numerous  works 
of  thought  and  information  remained  unwritten  or  un- 
published. Publishers  refused  them,  and  authors  dared 
not  issue  them  at  their  own  risks,  unless  they  were  able 
to  bear  the  prospective  losses.     Increased  sales  consequent 


174    THE   "NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING. 

on  lower  prices  liavc  thus  made  possible  much  of  the 
best  literature  which  would  else  have  been  impossible. 

These  advantages  are  now  being  furtively  destroyed. 
Some  three  years  ago,  in  certain  advertisements  of  books, 
the  word  ^^  net "  was  inserted  after  the  price,  implying 
that  no  discount  would  be  allowed.  Such  notices,  at  first 
chiefly  given  in  connection  with  scientific  and  technical 
books,  have  been  spreading.  Other  publishers  than  the 
one  who  commenced  the  practice  have  followed  his  lead, 
and  other  classes  of  books  have  been  gradually  included, 
until  now  books  for  popular  reading,  and  even  novels, 
are  advertised  with  this  warning  word.  It  is  no  doubt 
intended  that,  as  soon  as  the  public  become  accustomed 
to  it,  this  practice  shall  be  made  universal.  The  retail- 
er's rate  of  profit  is  no  longer  to  be  endangered  by  the 
competition  of  his  fellows.  Already  coercive  measures, 
like  those  which  a  generation  ago  maintained  this  system, 
are  growing  up.  Booksellers  Avho  have  allowed  small 
discounts  from  "  net  "  prices  have  received  warnings  that, 
if  they  do  so  again,  supplies  of  books  will  be  denied  to 
them.  It  is  true  that  the  profit  now  to  be  secured  to  the 
retail  distributor  is  less  than  was  secured  before.  Still 
it  is  in  most  cases  twice  as  much  as  that  which  contents 
one  who  allows  25  per  cent  discount.  But  the  essential 
question  does  not  concern  the  amount  of  the  prescribed 
profit.  The  essential  question  is  whether  a  fixed  rate 
shall  be  maintained.  When  the  growing  practice  has 
been  fully  re-established  the  rate  of  profit  may  be  raised 
without  difficulty.  As,  in  the  past,  publishers  who  did 
not  yield  to  the  Booksellers'  Association  Avere  punished 
either  by  the  ignoring  of  their  books  or  by-  the  practice 
of  replying  to  customers  who  ordered  them  that  they 
were  "  out  of  print "  or  "  at  the  binder's,"  so,  in  future 


THE  "NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING.    175 

there  may  be  punishment  for  publishers  who  resist 
any  increased  claims  which  the  Association  makes. 
Competition  once  excluded,  the  monopoly  may  dic- 
tate its  own  terms.  Doubtless  we  shall  hear  a  de- 
fence of  these  resuscitated  regulations.  Some  will 
say  that  retailers  should  be  properly  paid  for  their 
work,  and  that  underselling  by  one  another  does  them 
great  mischief.  Others  will  say  that  publishers  bene- 
fit by  giving  retailers  a  sufficient  stimulus  to  push  their 
books.  The  authors,  too,  will  be  said  to  gain  by  the 
increased  sales  resulting.  It  will  even  possibly  be 
urged  that  the  public  are  benefitted  by  having  books 
brought  under  their  notice  better  than  they  would 
otherwise  be.  To  these  and  other  pleas  there  is  a  brief 
but  sufficient  reply.  They  were  urged  a  generation 
ago,  and  a  generation  ago  they  were  examined  and 
rejected. 

What  will  happen  remains  to  be  seen.  Possibly,  or 
even  probably,  the  influences  which  sufficed  to  abolish 
this  trade-union  dictation  in  1852  will  suffice  to  prevent 
its  revival  in  1894. 

The  foregoing  communication  of  course  initiated  a 
controversy.  The  following  is  the  first  of  the  letters 
which  I  wrote  in  reply  to  opponents.  It  was  entitled 
"  The  Bookseller's  Trade  Union,"  and  in  pommon'  with 
all  my  subsequent  letters  on  this  subject  was  signed  "  A 
Free  Trader."  It  was  published  in  The  Times  for  Octo- 
ber 26,  1894. 

There  are  always  reasons  to  be  given  for  every  policy, 
however  really  indefensible,  which  to  those  who  urge 
them  seem  quite  sufficient,  or  which  they  profess  to  think 


176    THE   ''NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING. 

quite  suflB-cient.  The  two  correspondents  who  write 
about  the  book-trade  in  your  issue  of  to-day  furnish  ex- 
amples. 

The  retail  booksellers,  poor  fellows,  are  being  ruined 
by  competition  with  one  another,  says  Mr.  Heinemann, 
and  must  be  prevented  from  competing  —  "  those  Avho 
have  to  live  by  books  shall  be  able  to  live  by  them." 
But  why  not  those  who  have  to  live  by  tea  and  sugar? 
Why  not  those  whose  business  is  the  making  of  clothes? 
Does  not  one  grocer  injure  another  by  selling  coffee  and 
currants  at  reduced  prices?  Is  it  not  one  tailor's  income 
diminished  if  another  tailor  advertises  coats  and  trou- 
sers at  lower  rates?  Carry  out  this  trade-union  idea  to 
its  logical  outcome,  and  we  arrive  at  universal  protec- 
tion. The  authorized  trader  shall  be  protected  against 
the  unauthorized  trader,  whether  he  be  a  foreigner,  or 
whether  he  be  a  fellow-citizen.  All  industrial  progress 
would  be  stopped  if  this  system  were  consistently  carried 
out. 

Messrs.  Hatchards  ascribe  to  the  public  a  remarkable 
credulity.  They  practically  say: — ^^  Let  us  enforce  rates 
of  profit,  from  which  no  discounts  are  to  be  made,  and 
the  public  will  not  suffer.  We  will  take  care  that  they 
have  their  books  at  the  same  prices  as  now.''  So  that 
publishers  and  retailers,  taken  together,  are  to  have  larger 
profits  from  the  sales  than  at  present,  but  these  larger 
profits  are  to  be  at  nobody's  expense.  A  curious  process 
this,  by  which  one  or  other  of  these  book-traders,  or  both 
of  them,  w^ill  gain  more  by  the  business  than  they  did 
before,  but  the  extra  gain  will  come  from  nowhere ! 

The  contention  of  Messrs.  Hatchards  is,  however, 
easily  disposed  of  by  facts.  A  correspondent  living  in  a 
provincial  town  writes  to  me ; — 


THE   "NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING.     177 

^'  I  was  informed  by  a  bookseller  I  deal  with  in —  that 
he  no  longer  allowed  2d.  in  the  shilling,  whereas  up  to 
six  months  ago  to  my  knowledge,  and  possibly  more  re- 
cently, he  has  always  done  so." 

So,  too,  is  it  in  London.  A  friend  gives  me  his  ex- 
perience as  follows: — 

I  first  noticed  it  about  two  or  three  years  since  in  con- 
nexion with  Macmillan's  publications — when  he  made 
the  price  of  the  English  Illustrated  Magazine  6d.  net. 
It  had  previously  been  sent  to  me  on  a  yearly  order  from 
a  bookseller  for  4^d.  a  copy. 

Thus  it  is  manifest  that  a  rise  to  the  old  tariff  of  pro- 
fits is  not  to  be  looked  for  in  the  future;  it  already  ex- 
ists. Clearly  the  abolition  of  the  2d.  in  the  shilling 
brings  the  rates  to  what  they  were  in  '52,  and  clearly  if 
what  was  to  be  had  three  years  ago  at  4^d.  is  now  only 
to  be  had  at  6d.,  it  involves  that  the  whole  25  per  cent, 
discount  which  was  allowed  to  the  customer  is  now  ap- 
propriated either  by  publisher  or  retailer  or  by  the  two 
together;  this  extra  profit  being  in  addition  to  the  pro- 
fit previously  made.  The  facts  therefore  directly  contra- 
dict the  statement  of  Messrs.  Hatchards. 

That  coercive  regulations  are  already  in  full  force 
there  is  also  clear  evidence.  Through  two  channels  has 
proof  come  to  me  that  booksellers  who  have  made  dis- 
counts on  books  issued  at  "  net "  prices  have  their  sup- 
plies stopped  if  they  disobey  the  order  not  to  do  so 
again.  One  of  those  who  have  written  to  me  names 
"  the  case  of  a  City  discount  bookseller  who  has  been 
allowing  a  small  discount  on  ^  net '  books.  The  result 
has  been  that  he  is  not  allowed  to  have  any  more 
'  net '  books  from  the  corresponding  publisher  or  from 


NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING. 

any  of  tlic  other  publishers  who  have  been  informed  of 
his  doings." 

So  that  the  revived  trade-union  system  of  '52  is  now, 
as  then,  adopting  the  usages  of  trade-unionism  in  generaL 
There  are  spies  on  the  disobedient  retail  booksellers,  as 
among  artisans  there  are  pickets  to  watch  the  doings  of 
non-unionists.  And  if  there  is  not  that  physical  blud- 
geoning by  which  artisan  unionists  seek  to  punish  the 
non-unionists  who  take  lower  wages,  there  is  the  moral 
bludgeoning  by  which  the  bookseller-unionists  endeavour 
to  knock  on  the  head  the  business  of  the  non-unionists 
who  sell  at  lower  profits. 

But  even  were  it  the  duty  of  the  public  to  see  that  the 
trader  in  books — publisher,  wholesale  dealer,  or  retailer 
— is  well  paid,  which  it  is  not,  there  would  be  sufficiently 
clear  proof  that  without  any  such  coercive  regulations 
as  those  now  revived,  each  makes  sufficiently  good  pro- 
fits. Without  emphasizing  the  cases  of  the  long-esta- 
blished publishing  houses,  which  are  notoriously  wealthy, 
there  are  cases  of  comparatively  recent  publishers  who 
have  made  money  in  abundance.  Unless  my  memory 
fails  me,  it  is  but  a  few  years  since  Mr.  Macmillan,  an 
entirely  self-made  man,  gave  away  a  large  sum  for 
the  building  of  a  church.  And  within  these  few  weeks 
there  has  been  published  the  fact  that  a  discount 
bookseller,  recently  deceased,  left  personalty  exceeding 
£28,000. 

The  following  letter  appeared  in  Tlic  Times  for  Octo- 
ber 30,  1894,  under  the  title  of  ''  The  Book  Trade." 

Your  correspondent  "  A  London  Bookseller  "  misses 
the  point  of  my  comparison.  Tlie  argument  of  Mr. 
Ileinemannwas: — Booksellers  who ''live  by  books  shall  be 


THE   ''NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING.     179 

able  to  live  by  them  '^ — in  otlier  words,  tliey  must  make 
fair  profits.  They  undersell  one  another  and  so  cut  down 
profits.  To  prevent  this  their  rates  of  profit  must  be 
fixed.  My  reply  was : — Grocers  must  live  by  grocery  and 
they  must  make  fair  profits.  They  undersell  one  an- 
other and  cut  down  profits.  Therefore  their  rates  of 
profit  must  be  fixed.  It  matters  not  in  the  least  whether 
fixing  the  rates  of  profit  is  easy  in  the  one  case  and  difii- 
cult  in  the  other — that  is  quite  another  issue.  The  argu- 
ment is — grocers  can  live  though  they  undersell  one  an- 
other; why  then  cannot  booksellers? 

But  now  let  me  point  out  to  "  A  London  Bookseller/' 
who  proposes  to  give  me  a  lesson  in  economics,  that  in 
respect  of  large  parts,  if  not  the  larger  parts,  of  their  busi- 
nesses, grocers  do  not  differ  at  all  from  booksellers;  their 
systems  are  perfectly  parallel.  In  these  modern  days 
every  one  who  passes  a  grocer's  shop  observes  within  the 
window  a  barricade  of  boxes,  tins,  cases,  jars,  bottles, 
packets,  &c.,  filled  with  patent  foods,  chocolates,  cocoas, 
pickles,  sauces,  preserved  and  potted  meats,  tinned  fish, 
nj.eat  extracts,  preserved  fruits  and  jellies,  soups,  soap, 
&c.  These  are  all  in  measured  quantities  at  nominally- 
fixed  prices,  but  are  all  sold  at  reduced  prices.  In  the 
catalogue  of  the  local  stores  at  which  I  deal  (not  empha- 
sizing the  eight  pages  of  patent  medicines,  all  having 
advertised  prices  that  are  fixed,  but  selling  prices  that 
are  below  them)  there  are  over  60  different  kinds  of 
household  articles  in  made-up  quantities  offered  to  cus- 
tomers at  various  discounts,  from  8  per  cent  to  nearly 
50  per  cent.  These  percentages  of  discount  offered  by 
one  dealer  differ  from  those  offered  by  another — the  deal- 
ers compete  in  the  amounts  of  their  discounts.  This  is 
exactly  what  the  booksellers  do,  and  are  supposed  to  ruin 


180    THE   ** NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING. 

one  another  by  doing.  My  argument  is  that,  since  the 
grocers  live  by  these  commodities,  though  they  compete 
in  their  discounts,  so  can  the  booksellers.  Indeed,  there 
needs  no  proof  of  this.  What  have  they  been  doing  for 
the  last  generation,  during  which  there  have  been  no 
"  net "  prices? 

The  facts  above  instanced  furnish  a  reply  to  Mr.  Mac- 
millan.  He  says  the  change  to  the  "  net ''  system  has 
been  made  to  abolish  ^^  this  absurd  business  of  putting 
up  a  price  in  order  to  knock  it  down  again."  But,  as 
we  see,  this  ^^  absurd  business ''  is  carried  on  throughout 
an  immense  part  of  our  retail  trade.  The  system  is  one 
by  which  alone  the  maker  and  the  distributor  of  made- 
up  quantities  remain  free  to  settle  their  respective  rates 
of  profit.  When  this  is  understood  there  ceases  to  be  any 
"  absurdity ''  in  the  contrast  between  the  nominal  and 
the  real  prices.  Here  is  a  tube  of  shaving  cream  which 
I  use  every  day.  It  is  marked  on  the  outside  Is.  6d. ; 
I  buy  it  for  lOd.  The  contrast  may  be  absurd,  but  I  tol- 
erate the  absurdity  and  pocket  the  8d. 

Mr.  Macmillan's  letter  suggests  one  further  remark. 
He  implies  that  the  change  to  ^'  net "  prices  has  been 
made  to  exclude  the  absurd  contradiction  between  a 
nominal  price  and  a  real  price.  Is  the  exclusion  of  this 
the  sole  effect  of  the  change?  I  fancy  there  is  a  much 
more  important  effect.  The  English  Illustrated  Maga- 
zine could  be  had  a  few  years  ago  at  4|d.,  but  cannot  now 
be  had  under  Gd.  Something  more  has  happened  than 
the  equalization  of  the  nominal  and  real  prices.  The  l-Jd. 
per  copy  which  before  remained  in  the  pockets  of  the 
public  is  now  transferred  to  the  pockets  of  the  trade — 
whether  retailers,  wholesalers,  or  publishers,  or  all  three, 
matters  not  to  the  public. 


THE  ''NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OP  BOOKSELLING.    181 

The  complaint  of  Messrs.  AVhitaker  and  Williams  is 
by  implication  dealt  with  above.  Under  the  present  dis- 
count system  under-selling  prevents  them  from  making 
a  "  fair  living  profit/'  and  they  therefore  want  profits 
fixed.  But  why  should  Messrs.  Whitaker  and  Williams 
have  secured  to  them  a  "  fair  living  profit "  any  more 
than  retailers  of  other  classes?  Mr.  Whitaker  does  not 
feel  responsible  for  the  profits  of  his  butcher.  If  he 
complains  to  Mr.  Slaughter  that  he  charges  lid.  per  lb. 
for  sirloins  whereas  Mr.  Carcase  will  supply  him  with 
equally  good  sirloins  for  lOd.  per  lb.,  and  if  Mr.  Slaugh- 
ter says  that  he  '^  cannot  pay  his  way  honestly,  with 
heavy  rent,  taxes,  and  assistants,  &c.,"  unless  he  charges 
lid.,  Mr.  Whitaker  will  reply  that  that  is  his  affair, 
and  that  Mr.  Carcase  manages  to  pay  his  way  though  he 
charges  only  lOd.  If,  then,  Mr.  Whitaker  does  not  con- 
cern himself  about  the  sufficiency  of  Mr.  Slaughter's 
profits,  w^hy  should  other  people  concern  themselves  about 
the  sufficiency  of  Mr.  Whitaker's  profits? 

One  more  of  your  correspondents,  "  B.  W.,"  has  to  be 
noticed.  He  tacitly  asks  whether  the  publisher  has  not 
a  perfect  right  to  sell  to  the  bookseller  at  w^hat  rate  he 
pleases,  or  to  refuse  to  sell  at  all.  Unquestionably  he 
has.  Unquestionably  publishers  and  booksellers  are  with- 
in their  right  in  forming  a  combination  to  sell  at  fixed 
rates  and  to  boycott  any  retailer  who  breaks  the  rules  they 
make.  Nobody  may  say  them  nay,  so  long  as  they  re- 
frain from  violence  or  intimidation;  they  may  to  this 
extent  interfere  with  freedom  of  contract  between  the 
customer  and  the  retail  tradesman.  But  then  in  retalia- 
tion others  are  free  to  do  things  which  may  be  greatly 
to  their  disadvantage.  The  public  recognizing  the  grav- 
ity of  the  issue,  may  decline  business  with  retailers  who 


182    THE   ''NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING. 

have  entered  into  the  league.  Or  authors,  perceiving 
that  inevitably  the  forbidding  of  discounts  and  conse- 
quent raising  of  prices  must  limit  the  sales  of  their  works, 
may  prefer  to  negotiate  with  publishers  who  have  adopted 
the  ^'  net  "  system.  A  more  serious  thing  may  happen. 
Eeaders  may  more  extensively  adopt  the  practice  of 
ignoring  the  bookselling  organization  altogether  and  deal- 
ing directly  with  the  publisher  through  the  post.  Already 
this  practice  is  carried  on  to  a  certain  extent,  and  if,  as 
will  possibly  happen,  the  publisher  allows  to  the  purchaser 
who  buys  through  the  post  the  whole  discount  he  now 
allows  the  trade,  instead  of  allowing  only  part  of  it  as 
he  does  now,  the  practice  will  become  very  extensive. 

The  next  letter  appeared  in  The  Times  of  jSTovember 
6,  1894,  under  the  same  title  as  the  last. 

Before  making  special  replies  to  your  correspondent 
"  A  Former  Bookseller,"  I  may  set  down  some  general 
replies. 

In  the  communication  published  on  October  25  which 
opened  the  controversy,  it  was  remarked  that  the  argu- 
ments once  before  urged  in  defence  of  the  bookseller's 
trade  union  regulations  would  be  again  urged.  If  on 
examination  they  proved  invalid  in  1852,  why  should 
they  be  valid  in  1894?  The  nature  of  the  trade  is  the 
same  now  as  then. 

'^  The  same  now  as  then,''  did  I  say?  ^ot  quite. 
The  conditions  have  changed  in  favour  of  the  bookseller. 
Postage  is  cheaper;  freights  cost  less;  the  amount  of 
business  is  greater.  So  that  if  the  pleas  then  put  for- 
ward were  inadequate  they  are  more  inadequate  now. 

"My  further  general  reply,  which  I  make  once  again, 


THE   "NET-PRICE'*  SYSTEM  OP  BOOKSELLING.     1G3 

is  that  for  tlie  last  forty  odd  years  booksellers  liave  sus- 
tained the  competition  with  one  another  which  it  is  said 
they  cannot  sustain.  I  am  not  aware  that  there  are  more 
bankruptcies  among  booksellers  than  among  other  trad- 
ers; and  the  plain  implication  is  that  the  evils  of  com- 
petition, which  all  traders  have  to  bear,  do  not  weigh 
upon  them  more  than  upon  others. 

Passing  to  the  special  arguments  used  by  "  A  Former 
Bookseller,"  let  me  first  remark  that  he  is  keenly  con- 
scious of  those  difficulties  which  stand  in  the  bookseller's 
way,  but  appears  to  be  unconscious  that  every  kind  of 
tradesman  has  other  special  difficulties  which  in  like  man- 
ner yield  him  reasons  why  he  should  be  protected — rea- 
sons in  some  cases  much  stronger.  Here  is  a  fishmonger 
whose  daily  supply  goes  bad  if  not  quickly  sold,  and  who, 
if  the  morning's  sale  leaves  a  remnant,  has  to  sell  it  late 
in  the  day  at  a  great  sacrifice;  and  the  butcher,  in  smaller 
degree,  is  subject  to  a  like  evil.  Fruiterei-s,  too,  obtain, 
now  from  home,  now  from  abroad,  commodities  many 
of  which  are  perishable  and  entail  heavy  losses  when  not 
soon  disposed  of.  Must  fishmongers,  butchers,  fruiter- 
ers, &c.,  therefore  have  fij^ed  rates  of  profit  that  they  may 
be  able  to  bear  these  deductions  from  their  returns? 

But  such  pleas  are  irrelevant.  The  sufficient  answer 
is  that  in  every  trade  the  difficulties,  drawbacks,  &c.,  are 
similarly  recognized  and  allowed  for  by  each  member  of 
it  and  similarly  restrain  his  lowering  of  prices  or  making 
of  discounts.  If  bookseller  A  makes  speculative  purchas- 
es and  occasionally  loses  by  dead  stock,  so  do  booksellers 
B,  C,  and  D;  and  if  A,  because  he  has  to  cover  these 
losses,  cannot  afford  more  than  a  certain  discount,  neither 
can,  B,  C,  or  D.  Whatever  the  conditions  of  the  trade, 
they  operate  on  all,  and  restrain  the  underselling  of  all, 


184    THE  "NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OP  BOOKSELLINa. 

and  ill  some  cases  result  in  unusually  liigli  rates  of  pro- 
fits, as  among  druggists.  Tlie  trader  has  to  strike  a 
balance  between  ruining  himself  on  the  one  hand  by 
conceding  too  much  and  losing  business  by  high  prices 
on  the  other  hand.  The  balancing  is  ever  going  on  no 
matter  what  the  kind  of  business. 

With  your  permission,  Sir,  I  will  deal  separately  with 
the  remainder  of  '^  A  Former  Bookseller's ''  argument. 
It  raises  questions  of  another  kind,  which  I  am  very  glad 
to  have  raised  but  cannot  treat  adequately  now. 

Meanwhile,  let  me  thank  "  Half -Profits  "  for  point- 
ing out  that  I  have  conceded  too  much.  Unless  with  the 
assent  of  the  author  the  publisher  has  no  right  to  put  any 
restraints  on  the  distribution  of  his  work.  'Not  only  is 
the  author  who  publishes  on  commission  or  on  the  "  half- 
profits  "  system  liable  to  have  his  returns  diminished,  but 
even  the  one  who  has  sold  his  copyright  may  be  injured 
and  ought  to  have  a  voice  in  the  matter.  There  are  other 
results  than  pecuniary  ones  to  be  considered.  An  author 
may  be  anxious  to  have  his  work  more  widely  distributed, 
either  for  reputation's  sake  or  for  the  truth's  sake,  or  for 
both. 

The  letter  which  here  follows  appeared  on  November 
21,  1894,  under  the  title  "  The  Bookselling  Question," 
and  is  the  last  contributed  by  me  to  The  Times  on  this 
matter. 

Xeither  your  space  nor  my  time  will  permit  me  to 
continue  the  controversy.  Moreover,  it  is  a  bootless  busi- 
ness to  combat  those  who  think  that  the  public  are  bound 
to  see  that  every  man's  business  pays,  and  who  think  that 
every  town,  though  it  may  be  small  and  containing  few 
bookbuyers,  must  be  provided  with  a  good  bookshop. 


THE   ''NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING.    185 

Was  it  not  Sir  William  Harcoiirt  wlio  said — "  We  are  all 
Socialists  now  "  ?  It  seems  very  much  like  it.  All  I 
can  further  do  is  to  indicate  the  heads  of  a  remaining 
argument. 

Of  the  books  published  not  more  than  one  in  20  is  put 
in  stock,  even  by  large  retail  booksellers.  A  much  smaller 
proportion  has  been  stated  to  me,  but  let  us  say  one  in 
20.  That  they  may  do  a  paying  business  with  this  20th 
of  the  books  published,  retail  booksellers  say  they  should 
have  their  profits  raised  by  prices  from  which  no  dis- 
counts are  to  be  allowed — that  is,  the  public  should  be 
made  to  pay  on  these  books  an  extra  amount.  But,  now, 
what  about  the  19  out  of  the  20  which  are  not  stocked  by 
booksellers?  The  aim  is  to  make  the  "  net "  prices  uni- 
versal. These  19  unstocked  books,  therefore,  will  also 
have  their  prices  raised,  and,  while  the  public  is  made  to 
pay  more  for  them  than  they  would  otherwise  do,  the 
consequent  restriction  of  sales  must  diminish  the  profits 
going  to  the  authors  of  them. 

Let  us  ask  next  what  are  the  respective  characters  of 
the  l-20th  put  in  stock  and  of  the  19-20ths  not  put  in 
stock.  The  first  class,  speaking  of  them  in  the  mass, 
are  of  the  amusing  kind — novels,  sensational  books,  gos- 
siping biographies,  narratives  of  adventures,  and  so  forth, 
the  books  which  are  read  by  ladies  who  loll  on  their  sofas 
instead  of  attending  to  their  housekeeping  and  their 
children,  books  which  minister  to  what  may  be  called  a 
mental  dipsomania.  The  second  class  is  no  doubt  made 
up  largely  of  valueless  books,  but  it  also  generally  in- 
cludes some  books  of  the  highest  value — books  of  authors 
who  have  not  yet  made  their  names  and  which  are  now 
and  then  of  great  importance,  instructive  books,  books  of 

science,  philosophy,  technical  information,  in  short,  grave 
13 


ISG    THE   ''NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLINa. 

Looks  wliieli  arc  most  needed  for  the  spread  of  culture. 
AVliat  happens,  then?  Various  books  of  most  worth, 
which  in  any  case  will  have  small  circulations  and  will 
often  inflict  losses,  are  to  have  their  small  circulations 
diminished  by  artificially-raised  prices.  So  that,  in  short, 
the  literature  of  amusement,  which  needs  no  encourage- 
ment, is  to  be  encouraged,  while  the  literature  of  instruc- 
tion, which  especially  needs  encouragement,  is  to  be  dis- 
couraged. 

Here  I  will  end  with  the  remark  that  any  one  who 
observes  the  doings  of  retail  traders  in  general  will  see 
that  everywhere  '^  pushing ''  is  a  cause  of  degradation, 
for  the  retailer  is  led  by  large  discounts  offered  to  push 
the  inferior  articles,  and  by  slow  steps  the  superior  are 
often  thrust  out  altogether.  In  a  considerable  degree 
this  process  goes  on  with  retail  booksellers.  If,  there- 
fore, as  we  are  told,  the  ^'  pushing ''  of  books  is  made  un- 
remunerative  by  the  discount  system,  I  simply  reply, 
"  So  much  the  better.'' 

P.  S. — A  friend  suggests  the  question.  How  much  of 
the  decay  in  the  business  of  provincial  booksellers  is  due 
to  free  libraries,  Avhich  obtain  their  supplies  of  books 
wholesale  from  London  and  make  one  copy  serve  for 
many  readers? 

From  the  pages  of  The  Times  the  controversy  was 
transferred  to  those  of  the  Athenceum,  and  to  various 
antagonists  who  had  been  publishing  letters  in  that 
journal  I  made  the  following  replies  under  the  signature 
^'  An  Author,"  of  which  the  first  was  published  on  'No- 
vember  24,  1894,  under  the  title  "  Publishers,  Booksel- 
lers, and  the  Public." 


THE   "NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLIXG.     187 

The  voices  of  ''  the  trade,"  which  have  Leeu  for  these 
three  weeks  heard  in  the  Athenoeum,  naturally  form  a 
harmonious  chorus;  and  the  chorus  is  the  more  harmo- 
nious because  the  voices  come  from  members  of  a  mu- 
tual admiration  society. 

Mr.  Ivrantz  quotes  with  approval  Mr.  Heinemann, 
and  Mr.  Heinemann  quotes  with  approval  Mr.  Krantz. 
Both  German  by  origin,  as  we  must  suppose,  they  ap- 
plaud things  German.  "We  are  to  take  our  cue  from  the 
bureaucratic  country,  the  socialistic  country,  the  soldier- 
ridden  country — a  country  where  every  man  is  hampered 
by  police  regulations  in  the  carrying  on  of  his  life;  and 
the  coercive  administration  which,  in  harmony  with  the 
social  type,  Germany  has  established  in  the  book  trade, 
is  recommended  as  a  coercive  administration  to  be  imi- 
tated here.  To  my  thinking,  anything  described  as  a 
part  of  the  German  regime  should  be  regarded,  not  as 
something  to  adopt,  but  as  something  to  avoid. 

And  now  we  have  in  addition  the  courtesies  and  ex- 
pressions of  agreement  uttered  by  "  A  London  Booksel- 
ler "  to  "  A  Publisher."  The  thing  is  extremely  natural 
and  means  very  little.  If  the  representatives  of  an  ar- 
tisan's trade-union,  addressing  the  public,  endorsed  one 
another's  arguments,  the  public  would,  I  think,  not  con- 
sider the  mutual  endorsement  of  much  value;  and  if 
these  artisan  trade-unionists  assured  the  public  that  the 
higher  wages  they  had  exacted,  by  punishing  those  of 
their  class  who  worked  for  less,  were  advantageous  to  the 
community,  much  more  scepticism  than  belief  w^ould 
pretty  certainly  be  shown. 

Let  us  look  at  the  facts  in  the  broad.  Publishers, 
wholesale  dealers,  and  booksellers  constitute  a  piece  of 
social  machinery  by  which  the  products  of  writers  are 


188    THE   *' NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING. 

transferred  to  readers.  The  meniLers  of  tliis,  as  of  other 
pieces  of  social  machinery,  do  the  best  they  can  for  them- 
selves. They  have  to  live  by  their  work,  and  they  make 
all  the  profits  they  are  able.  Nobody  can  blame  them. 
But  then  let  it  be  understood  that  they  are,  in  all  they 
do,  pursuing  their  own  interests,  and  do  not  let  us  be 
told  that  the  increase  of  their  gains  will  be  a  gain  either 
to  writers  or  to  readers.  Supposing  the  kind  of  distri- 
buting work  to  be  the  same,  then  extra  pay  for  it  is  extra 
loss  to  those  for  whom  it  is  done — writers  or  readers,  or 
both.  With  books,  as  w^itli  other  things,  the  essential 
interests  are  those  of  producers  and  consumers,  and  it 
is  for  them  to  see  that  the  agency  which  communicates 
between  them  does  its  w^ork  as  efficiently  and  cheaply  as 
possible.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  public  should 
pay  more  than  need  be  for  book-distribution  than  for 
the  distribution  of  any  other  kind  of  commodity. 

But  my  chief  purpose  in  writing  this  letter  is  to  sug- 
gest to  "  the  trade  "  that  there  may  come  from  their  ac- 
tion results  not  anticipated.  It  seems  to  me  that  very  pos- 
sibly they  will  illustrate  afresh  the  French  proverb,  "  It 
is  always  the  unexpected  which  happens.''  They  calcu- 
late upon  certain  obviously  beneficial  results;  but  they 
do  not  consider  whether  there  may  not  presently  be 
caused  results  which  defeat  their  aims.  I  have  spoken 
of  the  trade  as  a  piece  of  social  machinery,  and  the  figure 
of  speech  serves  well  to  point  my  warning.  With  ma- 
chines of  wood  and  iron  we  see  universally  that  the  old 
and  less  efficient  are  replaced  by  the  new  and  more  ef- 
ficient. The  complicated  machine  which  wastes  force  is 
thrown  aside,  and  the  simple  machine  which  loses  less 
in  friction  and  superfluous  movement  is  substituted  for 
it.    Inevitably  it  must  be  so  with  social  machinery.     The 


THE   ''KET-PEICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING.     189 

present  system  of  book-distribution  was  indispensable 
in  the  days  of  coaches  and  Pickford's  vans — the  days 
when  rates  of  postage  were  high  and  no  means  existed 
for  making  small  payments  at  a  distance.  The  cum- 
brous system  then  established  and  universally  used  w^as 
the  only  one  available.  But  now  that  a  simpler  and 
cheaper  and  quicker  one  is  available,  it  is  time  that  the 
old  one  should  be,  in  chief  part,  if  not  wholly,  set  aside. 
I^ow  that  we  have  parcel  post  and  book  post,  money  or- 
ders and  postal  orders,  by  the  aid  of  which  the  reader 
may  be  brought  into  direct  communication  with  the 
author's  agent,  it  is  absurd  to  go  on  employing  the  round- 
about communication.  To  suppose  that  the  old  arrange- 
ment can  be  permanently  kept  up,  now  that  the  new 
is  ready  to  take  its  place,  is  about  as  rational  as  to  sup- 
pose that  coaching  could  be  maintained  after  rail- 
ways had  been  established.  When  it  comes  to  be  clearly 
seen  that  by  postal  distribution,  dispensing  in  most 
cases  with  the  services  of  booksellers  the  prices  of 
books  may  be  reduced  by  at  least  one-third,  and  when 
the  buyers  of  books  benefit  by  this  large  economy, 
while  makers  of  books  benefit  by  the  consequent 
more  extensive  sale  of  their  works,  the  old  and  dear 
system  must  yield  to  the  new  and  cheap  one;  and  it 
seems  not  imj)robable  that  the  effort  now  made  to 
increase  the  costliness  of  the  old  system  will  serve  as 
a  stimulus  to  the  development  of  the  new.  At  any 
rate,  I  for  one  shall  do  all  I  can  to  further  the  system 
of  postal  distribution. 

The  following  second  letter  was  published  on  De- 
cember 29. 

I  have  been  in  various  ways  prevented  from  taking 


100    THE    "NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM   OF   BOOKSELLING. 

notice  of  the  arguments  of  your  correspondents  on  the 
bookselling  question. 

Mr.  Ileinemann  thinks  to  parry  my  remark  about 
the  bias  in  favour  of  things  German,  which  character- 
izes the  report  of  M.  Krantz  which  he  endorses,  by  quot- 
ing the  corrected  statement  that  the  report  was  made  by 
M.  Soudier,  '^  the  well-known  publisher  and  bookseller." 
So  far  from  strengthening  his  case,  he  w^eakens  it  by  this 
correction.  To  the  bias  of  patriotism  he  adds  the  bias 
of  trade  interests  and  prejudices.  Surely  it  is  manifest 
that  while  a  warp  is  given  to  every  man  by  the  influ- 
ences of  his  nationality,  another  warp  is  given  by  his  daily 
pursuit  of  profit;  and  that  the  ideas  which  these  pro- 
duce must  distort  his  judgments.  If  a  priest,  brought 
up  under  Koman  Catholic  usages,  and  ever  subject  to 
Papal  supremacy,  were  sent  over  here  to  report  on  the 
organization  of  the  English  Church,  and  if,  by  some 
Minister  of  Public  Worship,  his  report  were  issued 
abroad  as  an  authoritative  document,  w^e  should,  I  think, 
smile  at  the  folly  of  those  wdio  so  regarded  it.  In  the 
same  manner,  instead  of  accepting  M.  Soudier's  report, 
endorsed  by  M.  Krantz,  as  judicial,  we  may  more  fitly  con- 
ment  upon  the  absurdity  of  an  officialism  which  uncriti- 
cally accepts  conclusions  that  are,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
almost  certain  to  be  one-sided.  ^  As  an  author  I  have  very 
good  reason  for  looking  sceptically  on  a  French  publish- 
er's views  of  things. 

But  now,  criticisms  aside,  let  me  draw  attention  to  a 
few  undeniable  facts.  Last  year  there  were  published 
5,129  new  works,  besides  1,253  new  editions.  Of  these 
5,000  works  how  many  found  their  ways  on  to  booksel- 
ler's counters?  Shall  w^e  say  500?  Possibly  a  large 
London  bookseller  might  take  as  many,  or  even  more. 


THE    "XET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING.     191 

in  the  course  of  the  year.  But  what  about  the  provincial 
booksellers?  Do  any  of  these  in  great  towns  place  ten 
new  works  per  week  before  their  customers?  And  what 
of  booksellers  in  second  and  third  rate  towns?  Will  any 
one  allege  that  they  put  in  stock  400  yearly,  or  300,  or 
even  200?  jN'ay,  indeed,  does  not  a  competent  authority, 
Mr.  Stott,  tell  us  that  good  books  are  rarely  seen  in  the 
smaller  bookseller's  shops?  But  let  us  make  the  extreme 
assumption  that  one-tenth  of  the  works  issued  are  stocked 
by  booksellers.  What  becomes  of  the  remaining  nine- 
tenths?  Are  they  waste-paper?  Doubtless  a  few  do  not 
sell  at  all:  but  bankrupt  publishers  would  be  more  com- 
mon than  they  are  if  any  considerable  proportion  of 
their  books  entailed  loss.  The  recent  great  multiplica- 
tion of  publishers  implies  that  the  business  is  tolerably 
prosperous;  and  if  so,  the  mass  of  these  unstocked  nine- 
tenths  of  the  books  are  sold  at  a  profit.  How  then  are 
they  distributed  to  buyers?  Evidently  in  single  copies 
as  they  are  ordered.  And  this  is  what  every  author  must 
infer  if  he  looks  into  matters.  Of  the  first  hundred 
copies  or  so  "  subscribed,"  if  his  book  promises  fairly 
part  may  be  exposed  for  sale  by  leading  booksellers  in 
London,  Birmingham,  Manchester,  &c.  But  the  re- 
mainder of  the  thousand,  mostly  taken  in  twenty-fives  by 
the  wholesale  house,  goes  to  meet  the  demands  made  by 
booksellers  for  copies  as  they  are  asked  for.  Take  the 
kingdom  over,  and  the  bookseller  does  next  to  nothing 
save  as  a  channel  of  communication. 

Mr.  Stott  has  published  in  the  Nineteenth  Century 
an  article  entitled  "  The  Decay  of  Bookselling.''  It  is  a 
title  curiously  at  variance  with  the  facts.  In  1890  there 
were  published  4,414  new  works,  and  in  1893  the  num- 
ber was  5,129 — an  increase  of  over  700  in  three  years. 


102    THE    "XET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING. 

Unless  publishers  liave  been  deliberately  ruining  tliem- 
selves,  the  great  mass  of  these  books  must  have  been  sold. 
IIow  then  can  there  have  been  a  decay  in  bookse/h'n^? 
Of  course,  the  title  of  Mr.  Stott's  article  should  have 
been  ^'  The  Decay  of  Bookse?/ers  " — a  widely  different 
thing.  And  now,  thus  correcting  his  title,  Avhat  is  the 
obvious  corollary?  The  sale  of  books  has  gone  on  partly 
decreasing  in  number  and  partly  dwindling.  The  ne- 
cessary implication  is  that  the  distribution  of  books  has 
been  following  other  channels:  new^  channels  are  being 
formed  and  the  old  ones  are  being  partially  deserted. 
AVhat  the  new  channels  are  every  one  may  see;  and  that 
the  draft  into  them  is  adequate  to  account  for  the  change, 
every  one  may  infer.  To  a  small  extent  we  have  the  dis- 
tribution by  post,  though  this  is  at  present  not  large. 
We  have  the  growth  of  the  great  libraries  during  the 
last  fifty  years — Mudie's,  which  began  as  a  small  shop 
in  Southampton  Row;  the  other,  at  first  separate  but 
now  amalgamated,  circulating  libraries;  the  London  Li- 
brary, which  during  the  same  period  has  raised  its  an- 
nual circulation  to  120,000;  and  lastly,  the  everywhere 
ramifying  agency  of  Messrs.  Smith  &  Son,  having  depots 
in  all  towns  throughout  the  kingdom — depots  which 
bring  their  library  system  within  reach  of  every  one, 
and  afford  in  every  place  means  of  buying  and  ordering 
books.  Surely  the  actions  of  these  competitors  suffice 
to  account  for  the  change  which  Mr.  Stott  deplores;  es- 
pecially if  there  be  added  the  effects  of  free  libraries,  now 
so  common  in  large  towns. 

Leaving  out  the  interests  of  authors  and  public,  it 
seems  to  me  that,  catu  from  a  bookseller's  point  of  view, 
the  "  net "  system  is  an  extremely  questionable  remedy. 
Every  trader  knows  that  while  raising  the  price  increases 


THE   ''NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING.     193 

the  profit  on  each  article,  it  is  apt  to  diminish  the  num- 
ber of  articles  sold,  and  so  may  decrease  returns  instead 
of  increasing  them.  Will  it  not  be  the  same  with  books? 
Especially  in  face  of  the  competing  channels  of  dis- 
tribution which  are  now  drafting  off  part  of  their  busi- 
ness, will  not  booksellers,  by  raising  prices,  as  the  ^^  net  " 
system  must  practically  raise  them,  force  still  more  of  the 
current  of  distribution  into  these  competing  channels? 

One  further  letter  on  the  subject,  which  runs  as  fol- 
lows, was  contributed  to  another  periodical — The  Author 
for  December,  1894. 

I  am  very  glad  to  hear  that  the  committee  propose  to 
ascertain  the  consensus  of  opinion  among  members  of 
the  Author's  Society  on  the  question  of  "  net  "  prices.  I 
presume  that  a  general  meeting  will  be  held  for  the  pur- 
pose. 

The  very  decided  opinion  which  I  myself  entertain 
on  the  matter  has  two  grounds.  In  the  first  place  I  hold 
that  all  such  restrictive  interferences  with  freedom  of  con- 
tract are  inevitably  mischievous  in  the  end;  and,  in  the 
second  place,  I  hold  that  the  particular  restriction  now 
sought  for  will  be  detrimental  alike  to  authors  and  to 
the  public. 

Those  authors  who  have  not  carefully  considered  the 
question  might,  I  think,  not  unfitly  be  guided  by  the 
decision  which  authors  arrived  at  in  1852.  If  at  that 
time,  after  inquiry  and  consultation,  it  was  decided  by 
a  number  of  leading  authors,  literary  and  scientific,  that 
the  system  of  fixed  prices  from  which  no  discounts  were 
allowed  was  detrimental  to  them,  the  conclusion  that 
such  a  system;  if  now  re-established,  would  be  detri- 


194    THE    *'NET-rrJCE"  SYSTEM   OF  BOOKSELLI"NG. 

mental,  is  at  any  rate  a  liiglily  probable  one;  for  tberc 
have,  so  far  as  I  know,  taken  place  no  changes  which 
may  be  supposed  to  make  the  conclusion  held  valid  in 
the  one  case  invalid  in  the  other. 

But  it  need  not  take  long  to  form  an  independent 
judgment.  There  is  often  an  irrational  cry  against  mid- 
dle-men, though  middle-men  are,  in  the  majority  of  cases, 
very  useful  persons.  But  in  all  cases  middlemen  must 
be  kept  in  order.  They,  of  course,  pursue  their  own  in- 
terests, and,  if  allowed,  will  satisfy  those  interests  at  the 
expense  of  those  they  serve.  This  is  obviously  the  case 
with  the  middlemen  who  constitute  the  various  classes  of 
the  book  trade  as  with  all  others.  On  the  face  of  it,  there- 
fore, any  proposal  of  change  made  by  them  must  be 
looked  upon  with  great  suspicion. 

That  a  disadvantage  is  threatened  in  the  present  case 
will  at  once  be  seen  when  the  essentials  are  divested  of 
all  details.  It  is  contended  that  retail  booksellers  must 
have  greater  profits  assured  to  them.  These  greater  pro- 
fits must  be  at  the  cost  of  some  among  the  several  parties 
concerned.  At  whose  cost  then?  Those  concerned  are 
the  writers,  the  readers,  and  the  several  classes  of  traders 
who  come  between  them.  Of  these  classes  of  traders  one 
is  to  have  greater  gains.  Will  these  greater  gains  come 
from  the  other  classes  of  traders?  Will  the  publishers, 
for  instance,  sacrifice  part  of  their  profits  for  the  benefit 
of  retailers?  Certainly  not.  They  can  practically  make 
their  own  terms,  and  will  sacrifice  nothing,  if  they  do 
not  even  take  a  share  of  the  extra  gains.  Will  the  sa- 
crifice be  made  by  the  wholesale  bookseller?  It  is  un- 
likely; for  he,  too,  has  power  in  his  hands  to  make  his 
own  bargains,  and  can  take  care  he  docs  not  lose  by  the 
change.     There  remain  then  the  public  and  the  authors, 


THE    "NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLIXG.     105 

one  or  both  of  whom  must  suffer  a  loss  that  the  retailers' 
may  gain.  That  the  public  will  suffer  a  loss  is  clear,  if 
the  discounts  now  made  from  advertised  prices  are  denied 
to  them ;  for  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  advertised  prices 
Avill  be  lowered  to  balance  the  absence  of  discounts.  If 
that  were  done  publishers  would  gain  nothing.  Clearly, 
then,  the  loss  would  be  borne  directly  by  the  public.  But 
eventually  a  loss  would  also  be  borne  by  the  authors.  It 
is  imj)ossible  that  the  prices  of  books  can  be  raised  to 
buyers  without  to  some  extenf  restricting  the  sales. 
''  This  book  is  advertised  at  12s.,"  says  the  buyer  to  the 
retailer.  '^  That  is  too  much;  I  must  go  without  it." 
"  But,"  says  the  retailer,  '^  you  can  have  it  for  9s." 
^'  For  9s.,  you  say.  I  can  afford  9s.  You  may  let  me 
have  it."  Conversations  of  this  kind,  or  thoughts  cor- 
responding to  such  conversations,  must  be  of  continual  oc- 
currence. Obviously,  therefore,  if  discounts  are  given 
many  more  copies  of  a  book  are  sold  than  would  be  sold 
in  the  absence  of  discounts,  and  of  course  diminution  in 
the  number  of  copies  sold  is  diminution  of  the  author's 
profit,  though  the  rate  of  profit  remains  the  same. 

Alike,  then,  on  our  own  behalf  and  on  behalf  of  the 
public,  we  are,  I  think,  bound  to  oppose  the  attempt  to 
establish  '^  net  "  prices. 

Only  three  or  four  brief  letters  taking  the  same  side 
were  published:  all  others  were  letters  from  my  antago- 
nists, with  whom  I  had  to  carry  on  the  controversy  al- 
most single-handed.  Since  the  date  of  the  last  letter  the 
conflict  has  been  proceeding  with  advantage  to  the  trade- 
unionist  party.  The  "  net  "  system  of  publication  has 
been  spreading;  and  now  the  retailer  who  makes  dis- 


100     THE   •'NET-PRICE"  SYSTEM  OF  BOOKSELLING. 

counts  from  books  published  at  ^'  net "  prices,  or  who 
gives  more  than  twopence  in  the  shilling  discount  on 
other  books,  is  to  be  boycotted. 

Probably  we  shall  return  to  something  like  the  con- 
dition of  things  which  w^as  abolished  in  1852.  Univer- 
sally there  is  going  on  a  return  to  medievalism  in  the 
forms  of  industrial  government — a  re-establishment  of 
gild-regulations.  In  this  case,  as  in  other  cases,  it  will  be 
seen  that  men  who  are  without  clear  ideas  of  freedom, 
and  in  w^hom  the  sentiment  of  freedom  is  weak,  wdll 
lose  what  freedom  they  had  gained.  The  regime  of  con- 
tract which  recent  times  have  seen  gradually  established, 
is  giving  way  before  the  revived  regime  of  status — vol- 
untary cooperation  is  being  gradually  replaced  by  com- 
pulsory cooperation.  In  matters  of  trade  each  individual 
has  decreasing  powder  to  do  what  he  likes  and  increasing 
obligation  to  do  what  others  like.  Submitting  as  he  does 
to  the  dictation  of  his  fellows,  he  is  more  and  more  owned 
by  them  and  less  and  less  owned  by  himself. 


WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION?  197 


WHAT   IS    SOCIAL   EYOLUTIOX? 

The  following  article,  originally  published  in  The 
Nineteenth  Century  for  September,  1898,  was  called 
forth  in  reply  to  one  published  by  Mr.  W.  H.  Mallock  in 
the  preceding  number  of  that  periodical — one  in  which, 
responding  at  length  to  a  letter  of  mine  in  Literature,  he 
had  continued  that  attack  on  my  views  he  commenced  in 
his  Aristocracij  and  Evolution. 

Though  to  Mr.  Mallock  the  matter  will  doubtless 
seem  otherwise,  to  most  it  will  seem  that  he  is  not  pru- 
dent in  returning  to  the  question  he  has  raised;  since 
the  result  must  be  to  show  again  how  unwarranted  is  the 
interpretation  he  has  given  of  my  views.  Let  me  dis- 
pose of  the  personal  question  before  passing  to  the  im- 
personal one. 

He  says  that  I,  declining  to  take  any  notice  of  those 
other  passages  wdiich  he  has  quoted  from  me,  treat  his 
criticism  as  though  it  were  "  founded  exclusively  on  the 
particular  passage  which  "  I  deal  with,  "  or  at  all  events 
to  rest  on  that  passage  as  its  principal  foundation  and 
justification.''  *  It  would  be  a  sufiicient  reply  that  in  a 
letter  to  a  newspaper  numerous  extracts  are  Inadmis- 
sible; but  there  is  the  further  reply  "that  I  had  his  own 
warrant  for  regarding  the  passage  in  question  as  conclu- 
sively showing  the  truth  of  his  representations.  He 
writes : — 

"  Should  any  doubt  as  to  the  matter  still  remain  in 
the  reader's  mind,  it  will  be  dispelled  by  the  quotation  of 

*  Nineteenth  Century,  p.  316. 


19S  WHAT  IS  SOCIAL   EVOLUTION? 

Olio  further  passage.  VI  irue  social  aggregaiey  he  says 
[''as  distinct  from  a  mere  large  family},  is  a  union  of 
lil'e  individuals,  independent  of  one  another  in  parent- 
age, and  approximately  equal  in  capacities.^ ''  "^^ 

I  Jo  not  see  how,  having  small  liberty  of  quotation, 
I  could  do  better  than  take,  as  summarising  his  meaning, 
this  sentence  which  he  giA^es  as  dissij^ating  "  any  doubt." 
But  now  let  me  repeat  the  paragraph  in  w4iich  I  have 
pointed  out  how  distorted  is  Mr.  Mallock's  interpreta- 
tion of  this  sentence. 

'"  Every  reader  will  assume  that  this  extract  is  from 
some  passage  treating  of  human  societies.  He  will  be 
wrong,  however.  It  forms  part  of  a  section  describing 
Super-Organic  Evolution  at  large  (Principles  of  Sociol- 
ogy, §  3),  and  treating,  more  especially,  of  the  social 
insects:  the  purpose  of  the  section  being  to  exclude 
these  from  consideration.  It  is  implied  that  the  inquiry 
about  to  be  entered  upon  concerns  societies  formed  of 
like  units,  and  not  societies  formed  of  units  extremely 
unlike.  It  is  pointed  out  that  among  the  Termites  there 
are  six  unlike  forms,  and  among  the  Sauba  ants,  besides 
the  two  sexually-developed  forms,  there  are  three  classes 
of  workers — one  indoor  and  two  outdoor.  The  members 
of  such  communities — queens,  males,  soldiers,  workers 
— differ  widely  in  their  structures,  instincts,  and  powers. 
These  communities  formed  of  units  extremely  unequal 
in  tlieir  capacities  are  contrasted  with  communities 
formed  of  units  approximately  equal  in  their  capacities 
— the  human  communities  about  to  be  dealt  with. 
When  I  thus  di'stino'uished  between  groups  of  individ- 
uals having  widely  different  sets  of  faculties,  and  groups 
of  individuals  having  similar  sets  of  faculties  (constitut- 
ing their  common  human  nature),  I  never  imagined  that 
by  speaking  of  these  last  as  having  approximately  equal 
capacities,  in  contrast  with  the  first  as  having  extremely 

*  Aristocracy  and  Evolution,  \)\\  52-53.     The  italics  are  his. 


WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION?  199 

unequal  ones,  I  might  be  supposed  to  deny  that  any  con- 
siderable differences  existed  among  these  last.  Mr. 
Mallock,  however,  detaching  this  passage  from  its  con- 
text, represents  it  as  a  deliberate  characterization  to  be 
thereafter  taken  for  granted;  and,  on  the  strength  of  it, 
ascribes  to  me  the  absurd  belief  that  there  are  no  marked 
superiorities  and  inferiorities  among  men!  or,  that  if 
there  are,  social  results  flow  from  them !  ''  * 

Though  I  thought  it  well  thus  to  repudiate  the  ab- 
surd belief  ascribed  to  me,  I  did  not  think  it  well  to  enter 
upon  a  discussion  of  Mr.  Mallock's  allegations  at  large. 
He  says  I  ought  to  have  given  to  the  matter  "  more  than 
the  partial  and  inconclusive  attention  he  has  [I  have] 
bestowed  upon  it."  Apparently  he  forgets  that  if  a 
writer  on  many  subjects  deals  in  full  with  all  who  chal- 
lenge his  conclusions,  he  will  have  time  for  nothing  else ; 
and  he  forgets  that  one  who,  at  the  close  of  life,  has  but 
a  small  remnant  of  energy  left,  while  some  things  of 
moment  remain  to  be  done,  must  as  a  rule  leave  assail- 
ants unanswered  or  fail  in  his  more  important  aims. 
Now,  however,  that  Mr.  Mallock  has  widely  diffused  his 
misinterpretations,  I  feel  obliged,  much  to  my  regret,  to 
deal  with  them.  He  will  find  that  my  reply  does  not 
consist  merely  of  a  repudiation  of  the  absurdity  he  as- 
scribes  to  me. 

The  title  of  his  book  is  a  misnomer.  I  do  not  refer 
to  the  fact  that  the  word  "Aristocracy,"  though  used  in 
a  legitimate  sense,  is  used  in  a  sense  so  unlike  that  now 
current  as  to  be  misleading:  that  is  patent.  ISTor  do  I 
refer  to  the  fact  that  the  word  "  Evolution,"  covering, 
as  it  does,  all  orders  of  phenomena,  is  wrongly  used  when 
it  is  applied  to  that  single  group  of  phenomena  constitut- 
*  Literature,  April  3,  1891. 


200  WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION? 

ing  Social  Evolution.  But  I  refer  to  tlie  fact  tliat  his 
book  does  not  concern  Social  Evolution  at  all:  it  con- 
cerns social  life,  social  activity,  social  prosperity.  Its 
facts  bear  somewhat  the  same  relation  to  the  facts  of 
Social  Evolution  as  an  account  of  a  man's  nutrition  and 
physical  welfare  bears  to  an  account  of  his  bodily  struc- 
ture and  functions. 

In  an  essay  on  "  Progress:  its  Law  and  Cause,"  pub- 
lished in  1857,  containing  an  outline  of  the  doctrine 
which  I  have  since  elaborated  in  the  ten  volumes  of 
Synthetic  Philosopliy,  I  commenced  by  pointing  out  de- 
fects in  the  current  conception  of  progress. 

"  It  takes  in  not  so  much  the  reality  of  Progress  as 
its  accompaniments — not  so  much  the  substance  as  the 
shadow.  That  progress  in  intelligence  seen  during  the 
growth  of  the  child  into  the  man,  or  the  savage  into  the 
philosopher,  is  commonly  regarded  as  consisting  in  the 
greater  number  of  facts  known  and  laws  understood; 
whereas  the  actual  progress  consists  in  those  internal 
modifications  of  wdiich  this  increased  knowledge  is  the 
expression.  Social  progress  is  supposed  to  consist  in  the 
produce  of  a  greater  quantity  and  variety  of  the  articles 
required  for  satisfying  men's  wants;  in  the  increasing 
security  of  person  and  property;  in  widening  freedom 
of  action;  whereas,  rightly  understood,  social  progress 
consists  in  those  changes  of  structure  in  the  social  organ- 
ism which  have  entailed  these  consequences.  The  cur- 
rent conception  is  a  teleological  one.  The  phenomena 
are  contemplated  solely  as  bearing  on  human  happiness. 
Only  those  changes  are  held  to  constitute  progress  which 
directly  or  indirectly  tend  to  heighten  human  happiness. 
And  they  are  thought  to  constitute  progress  simply  he- 
cause  they  tend  to  heighten  human  happiness.  But 
rightly  to  understand  progress,  we  must  inquire  what  is 
the  nature  of  these  changes,  considered  apart  from  our 

interests."  * 

*  Westminster  Review,  April,  1857. 


WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION?  201 

With  the  view  of  excluding  these  anthropocentric  in- 
terpretations and  also  because  it  served  better  to  cover 
those  inorganic  changes  which  .  the  word  "  progress  '' 
suggests  but  vaguely,  I  employed  the  word  "  evolution.'^ 
But  my  hope  that,  by  the  use  of  this  word,  irrelevant 
facts  and  considerations  would  be  set  aside,  proves  ill- 
grounded.  Mr.  Mallock  now  includes  under  it  those 
things  which  I  endeavoured  to  exclude.  He  is  domi- 
nated by  the  current  idea  of  progress  as  a  process  of 
improvement,  in  the  human  sense;  and  is  thus  led  to 
join  with  those  social  changes  which  constitute  advance 
in  social  organization,  those  social  changes  which  are 
ancillary  to  it — not  constituting  parts  of  the  advance 
itself,  but  yielding  fit  materials  and  conditions.  It  is 
true  that  he  recognizes  social  science  as  aiming  ^'  to  de- 
duce our  civilization  of  to-day  from  the  condition  of  the 
primitive  savage."  It  is  true  that  he  says  social  science 
"  primarily  sets  itself  to  explain,  not  how  a  given  set  of 
social  conditions  affects  those  who  live  among  them,  but 
how  social  conditions  at  one  epoch  are  different  from 
those  of  another,  how  each  set  of  conditions  is  the  result- 
ant of  those  preceding  it."  *  But  in  his  conception  as 
thus  indicated  he  masses  together  not  the  phenomena  of 
developing  social  structures  and  functions  only,  but  all 
those  which  accompany  them;  as  is  shown  by  the  com- 
plaint he  approvingly  cites  that  the  sociological  theory 
set  forth  by  me  does  not  yield  manifest  solutions  of  cur- 
rent social  problems:  f  clearly  implying  the  belief  that 
an  account  of  social  evolution  containing  no  lessons  which 
he  who  runs  may  read  is  erroneous. 

While  Mr.  Mallock's  statements  and  arguments  thus 
recognize  Social  Evolution  in  a  general  way,  and  its  con- 

*  Aristocracy  and  Evolution,  pp.  5,  7.  f  Ibid.,  pp.  10-11. 

14 


202  WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION? 

tinuitj  with  evolution  of  simpler  kinds,  tliey  do  not  rec- 
ognize tliat  definition  of  evolution  under  its  various 
forms,  social  included,  which  it  has  been  all  along  my 
purpose  to  illustrate  in  detail.  lie  refers  to  evolution 
as  exhibited  in  the  change  from  a  savage  to  a  civilized 
state;  but  he  does  not  ask  in  what  the  change  essentially 
consists,  and,  not  asking  this,  does  not  see  what  alone  is 
to  be  included  in  an  account  of  it.  Let  us  contemplate 
for  a  moment  the  two  extremes  of  the  process. 

Here  is  a  wandering  cluster  of  men,  or  rather  of 
families,  concerning  which,  considered  as  an  aggregate, 
little  more  can  be  said  than  can  be  said  of  a  transitory 
crowd:  the  group  considered  as  a  whole  is  to  be  de- 
scribed not  so  much  by  characters  as  by  the  absence  of 
characters.  It  is  so  loose  as  hardly  to  constitute  an  aggre- 
gate, and  it  is  practically  structureless.  Turn  now  to  a 
civilized  society.  'No  longer  a  small  wandering  group  but 
a  vast  stationary  nation,  it  presents  us  with  a  multitude 
of  parts  which,  though  separate  in  various  degrees,  are 
tied  together  by  their  mutual  dependence.  The  cluster 
of  families  forming  a  primitive  tribe  separates  with  im- 
punity: now  increase  of  size,  now  dissension,  now  need 
for  finding  food,  causes  it  from  time  to  time  to  divide; 
and  the  resulting  smaller  clusters  carry  on  what  social 
life  they  have  just  as  readily  as  before.  But  it  is  other- 
wise with  a  developed  society.  Xot  only  by  its  station- 
ariness  is  this  prevented  from  dividing  bodily,  but  its 
parts,  though  distinct,  have  become  so  closely  connected 
that  they  cannot  live  without  mutual  aid.  It  is  impos- 
sible for  the  agricultural  community  to  carry  on  its  busi- 
ness if  it  has  not  the  clothing  which  the  manufacturing 
community  furnishes.  "Without  fires  neither  urban  nor 
rural  populations  can  do  their  work,  any  more  than  can 


WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION?  203 

the  multitudinous  manufacturers  who  need  engines  and 
furnaces;  so  that  these  are  all  dependent  on  coal-miners. 
The  tasks  of  the  mason  and  the  builder  must  be  left 
undone  unless  the  quarryman  and  the  carpenter  have 
been  active.  Throughout  all  towns  and  villages  retail 
traders  obtain  from  the  Manchester  district  the  calicoes 
they  want,  from  Leeds  their  woollens,  from  Sheffield 
their  cutlery.  And  so  throughout,  in  general  and  in 
detail.  That  is  to  say,  the  whole  nation  is  made  coher- 
ent by  the  dependence  of  its  parts  on  one  another — a 
dependence  so  great  that  an  extensive  strike  of  coal- 
miners  checks  the  production  of  iron,  throws  many  thou- 
sands of  ship-builders  out  of  work,  adds  to  the  outlay  for 
coal  in  all  households,  and  diminishes  railway  dividends. 
Here  then  is  one  primary  contrast — the  primitive  tribe 
is  incoherent,  the  civilized  nation  is  coherent. 

While  the  developing  society  has  thus  become  inte- 
grated, it  has  passed  from  its  original  uniform  state  into 
a  multiform  state.  Among  savages  there  are  no  unlike- 
nesses  of  occupations.  Every  man  is  hunter  and  upon 
occasion  warrior;  every  man  builds  his  own  hut,  makes 
his  own  weapons;  every  wife  digs  roots,  catches  fish,  and 
carries  the  household  goods  when  a  change  of  locality  is 
needed:  what  division  of  labour  exists  is  only  between 
the  sexes.  We  all  know  that  it  is  quite  otherwise  with 
a  civilized  nation.  The  changes  which  have  produced 
the  coherence  have  done  this  by  producing  the  division 
of  labour :  the  two  going  on  pari  passu.  The  great  parts 
and  the  small  parts,  and  the  parts  within  parts,  into 
which  a  modern  society  is  divisible,  are  clusters  of  men 
made  unlike  in  so  far  as  they  discharge  the  unlike 
functions  required  for  maintaining  the  national  life. 
Eural  labourers  and  farmers,  manufacturers  and  their 


204  WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION! 

workpeople,  wholesale  merchants  and  retailers,  &c.  &c., 
constitute  differentiated  groups,  which  make  a  society  as 
a  whole  extremely  various  in  composition.  Xot  only  in 
its  industrial  divisions  is  it  various,  but  also  in  its  gov- 
ernmental division;  from  the  components  of  the  legisla- 
ture down  through  the  numerous  kinds  and  grades  of 
officials,  down  through  the  many  classes  of  masters  and 
subordinates,  down  through  the  relations  of  shopkeeper 
and  journeyman,  mistress  and  maid.  That  is  to  say,  the 
change  which  has  been  taking  place  is,  under  one  aspect, 
a  change  from  homogeneity  of  the  parts  to  heterogeneity 
of  the  parts. 

A  concomitant  change  has  been  from  a  state  of  vague 
structure,  so  far  as  there  is  any,  to  a  state  of  distinct 
structure.  Even  the  primary  differentiation  in  the  low- 
est human  groups  is  confused  and  unsettled.  The  abo- 
riginal chief,  merely  a  superior  warrior,  is  a  chief  only 
while  war  lasts — loses  all  distinction  and  power  when 
war  ceases;  and  even  when  he  becomes  a  settled  chief,  he 
is  still  so  little  marked  off  from  the  rest  that  he  carries 
on  his  hut-building,  tool-making,  hunting,  &c.  just  as 
the  rest  do.  In  such  organization  as  exists  nothing  is 
clearly  distinguished,  everything  is  confused.  Quite 
otherwise  is  it  in  a  developed  nation.  The  various  occu- 
pations, at  the  same  time  that  they  have  become  multi- 
tudinous, have  become  clearly  specialized  and  sharpl}^ 
limited.  Eead  the  London  Directory,  and  while  shown 
how  numerous  they  are,  you  are  shown  by  the  names 
how  distinct  they  are.  This  increasing  distinctness  has 
been  shown  from  the  early  stages  when  all  freemen  were 
warriors,  through  the  days  wdien  retainers  now  fought 
and  now  tilled  their  fields,  down  to  the  times  of  standing 
armies;  or  again  from  the  recent  days  when  in  each 


WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION?  205 

rural  liousehold,  besides  the  bread-winning  occupation, 
there  were  carried  on  spinning,  brewing,  washing,  to  the 
present  day  when  these  several  supplementary  occupa- 
tions have  been  deputed  to  separate  classes  exclusively 
devoted  to  them.  It  has  been  shown  from  the  ages 
when  guilds  quarrelled  about  the  things  included  in 
their  respective  few  businesses,  down  to  our  age  when 
the  many  businesses  of  artisans  are  fenced  round  and  dis- 
puted over  if  encroached  upon,  as  lately  by  boilermakers 
and  fitters;  and  is  again  shown  by  the  ways  in  which  the 
professions — medical,  legal,  and  other — form  them- 
selves into  bodies  which  shut  out  from  practice,  if  they 
can,  all  who  do  not  bear  their  stamp.  And  throughout 
the  governmental  organization,  from  its  first  stage  in 
Avhich  the  same  man  played  various  parts — legislative, 
executive,  judicial,  militant,  ecclesiastic — to  late  stages 
when  the  powers  and  functions  of  the  multitudinous 
classes  of  officials  are  clearly  prescribed,  may  be  traced 
this  increasing  sharpness  of  division  among  the  compo- 
nent parts  of  a  society.  That  is  to  say,  there  has  been  a 
change  from  the  indefinite  to  the  definite.  While  the 
social  organization  has  advanced  in  coherence  and  in 
heterogeneity,  it  has  also  advanced  in  definiteness. 

If,  now,  Mr.  Mallock  will  turn  to  First  Principles, 
he  will  there  see  that  under  its  chief  aspect  Evolution  is 
said  to  be  a  change  from  a  state  of  indefinite,  incoherent 
homogeneity  to  a  state  of  definite,  coherent  heteroge- 
neity. If  he  reads  further  on  he  will  find  that  these 
several  traits  of  evolution  are  successively  exemplified 
throughout  astronomic  changes,  geologic  changes,  the 
changes  displayed  by  each  organism,  by  the  aggregate 
of  all  organisms,  by  the  development  of  the  mental  pow- 
ers, by  the  genesis  of  societies,  and  by  the  various  prod- 


206  WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION! 

nets  of  social  life — language,  science,  art,  &c.  Pur- 
suance of  the  inquiry  will  shoAV  him  that  in  the  series  of 
treatises  (from  which  astronomy  and  geology  were  for 
brevity's  sake  omitted)  dealing  with  biology,  psychology, 
and  sociology,  the  purpose  has  been  to  elaborate  the  in- 
terpretations sketched  out  in  First  Prmciples;  and  it 
will  also  show  him  that  I  have  not  been  concerned  to  do 
more  than  delineate  those  changes  of  structure  and  func- 
tion which,  according  to  the  definition,  constitute  Evolu- 
tion. He  will  see  that  in  treating  of  social  evolution 
I  have  dealt  only  with  the  transformation  through  which 
the  primitive  small  social  germ  has  passed  into  the  vast 
highly-developed  nation.  And  perhaps  he  will  then  see 
that  those  which  he  regards  as  all-important  factors  are 
but  incidentally  referred  to  by  me  because  they  are  but 
unimportant  factors  in  this  process  of  transformation. 
The  agencies  which  he  emphasizes,  and  in  one  sense 
rightly  emphasizes,  are  not  agencies  by  which  the  devel- 
opment of  structures  and  functions  has  been  effected. 
They  are  only  agencies  by  which  social  life  has  been 
facilitated  and  exalted,  and  aids  furnished  for  further 
social  evolution. 

Respecting  the  essential  causes  of  this  social  trans- 
formation, it  must  suffice  to  say  that  it  results  from  cer- 
tain general  traits  in  human  beings,  joined  with  the 
influences  of  their  varying  circumstances. 

Every  man  aims  to  pass  from  desire  to  satisfaction 
with  the  least  possible  hindrance — follows  the  line  of 
least  resistance.  Either  the  shortest  path,  or  the  path 
Avhicli  presents  fewest  impediments,  is  that  which  he 
chooses;  and  the  like  applies  to  courses  of  conduct  at 
large:  he  does  not  use  great  effort  to  satisfy  a  want  when 


WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION?  207 

small  effort  will  do.  Given  his  surroundings,  and  the 
occupation  he  chooses,  when  choice  is  possible,  is  that 
which  promises  a  satisfactory  livelihood  with  the  least 
tax  on  such  powers  as  he  has,  bodily  and  mental — is  the 
easiest  to  his  particular  nature,  all  things  considered. 
What  holds  of  individuals  holds  of  masses  of  individuals ; 
and  hence  the  inhabitants  of  a  tract  offering  facilities 
for  a  particular  occupation  fall  into  that  occupation.  In 
§  732  of  the  Principles  of  Sociology  I  have  given  from 
various  countries  illustrations  of  the  ways  in  which  local 
conditions  determine  the  local  industries: — instance 
among  ourselves  mining  districts  where  there  are  coal, 
ironstone,  lead,  slate;  wheat-growing  districts  and  pas- 
toral districts;  fruit  and  hop  districts;  districts  for 
weavers,  stockingers,  workers  in  iron;  places  for  ship- 
building, importing,  fishing,  &c.:  showing  that  certain 
sections  of  the  population  become  turned  into  organiza- 
tions for  the  production  of  certain  commodities,  without 
reference  to  the  directive  agency  of  any  man.  So  in 
each  case  is  it  with  the  various  classes  of  merchants,  shop- 
keepers, professional  men,  &c.,  who  in  these  several  cen- 
tres minister  to  those  engaged  in  its  special  industries: 
nobody  ordering  them  to  come  or  to  go. 

Similarly  when  we  pass  from  production  to  distribu- 
tion. As  in  India  at  the  present  time,  where  a  Jugger- 
naut-festival is  accompanied  by  a  vast  fair;  as,  accord- 
ing to  Curtius  and  Mommsen,  in  Greece  and  Kome,  the 
gatherings  of  people  to  make  sacrifices  to  the  gods  w^ere 
the  occasions  for  trading;  so  in  Christian  times,  church- 
festivals  and  saints'  days,  drawing  assemblages  of  people 
for  worship,  led  to  active  exchange  of  commodities — the 
names  of  the  fairs  proving  their  origin.  This  was  not 
arranged  by  any  one :  it  arose  from  the  common-sense  of 


208  WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION? 

all  who  wanted  to  sell  some  things  and  buy  others.  There 
has  been  a  like  history  of  the  rise  of  markets,  and  the 
transition  from  w^eekly  to  bi-w^eekly,  and  finally  to  daily, 
markets  in  respect  of  important  things — corn,  money,  se- 
curities. Xo  superior  man,  political  or  other,  dictated 
these  developments.  When  barter  gave  place  to  ex- 
change by  means  of  a  currency,  the  like  happened.  One 
wanting  to  dispose  of  surplus  goods,  meeting  one  who 
had  no  personal  need  for  such  goods,  took  in  exchange 
certain  things  in  universal  demand,  which  he  knew  he 
w^ould  be  able  to  pass  on  in  like  manner — in  early  stages 
articles  of  food,  of  warmth,  of  defence,  of  ornament; 
and  from  such  articles  arose  in  each  case  a  currency — 
here  dried  fish,  there  tea-bricks,  and  in  other  cases  skins, 
bundles  of  cotton,  here  standard  bars  of  rock  salt,  there 
standard  bars  of  iron,  in  one  place  definite  lengths  of 
cloth,  and  in  another  fine  mats,  and  in  many  places  orna- 
ments and  the  materials  for  ornaments :  which  last,  gold 
and  silver,  being  relatively  portable,  passed  into  wdde 
use.  These  precious  metals  w^ere  at  first  in  quanti- 
ties actually  weighed;  then  in  quantities  of  professed 
w^eight;  and  finally  in  quantities  bearing  the  king's 
stamp  as  being  the  most  trustworthy,  l^o  great  man — 
political,  industrial,  or  other — invented  this  system.  It 
has  everywhere  resulted  from  men's  efforts  to  satisfy 
their  needs  in  the  easiest  ways.  So  was  it  wdth  the  tran- 
sition from  a  currency  of  intrinsic  value  to  one  of  repre- 
sentative value.  When,  instead  of  a  direct  payment  in 
coin,  there  came  to  be  used  a  memorandum  of  indebt- 
edness to  be  presently  discharged,  which  could  be  trans- 
ferred to  others — when,  as  in  Italy,  to  save  the  weighing 
and  testing  of  miscellaneous  coins,  there  arose  the  prac- , 
tice  of  depositing  specified  quantities  with  a  ci;stodiau 


WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION?  209 

and  having  from  him  negotiable  receipts — when,  as  in 
England,  the  merchants,  after  having  been  robbed  by 
the  king  of  their  valuables,  left  for  security  in  the 
Tower,  sought  safer  places,  and,  depositing  them  in  the 
vaults  of  goldsmiths,  received  in  return  "goldsmiths^ 
notes,"  which  could  pass  from  hand  to  hand;  there  was 
initiated  a  paper-currency.  Goldsmiths  developed  into 
bankers;  after  central  banks  there  arose  provincial 
banks;  promises  to  pay  became  to  a  great  extent  substi- 
tutes for  actual  payments;  and  presently  grew  up  the 
supplementary  system  of  cheques,  extensively  serving 
in  place  of  coin  and  notes.  Finally,  bank-clerks  in  Lon- 
don, instead  of  presenting  to  the  respective  banks  the 
many  and  various  claims  upon  them,  met  and  exchanged 
these  claims  and  settled  the  balance:  whence  presently 
came  the  clearing  house.  'No  superior  man  arranged  all 
this.  Each  further  stage  was  prompted  by  the  desire 
to  economize  labour.  From  primitive  fairs  up  to  the 
daily  transactions  of  the  money  market,  distribution  and 
exchange  have  developed  without  the  dictation  of  any 
great  man,  either  of  Mr.  Carlyle's  sort  or  of  Mr.  Mal- 
lock's  sort.  It  has  been  so  throughout  all  other  arrange- 
ments subserving  national  life,  even  the  governmental. 
Though  here  at  least  it  seems  that  the  individual  will 
and  power  play  the  largest  part,  yet  it  is  otherwise.  I 
do  not  refer  merely  to  the  fact  that  without  loyalty  in 
citizens  a  ruler  can  have  no  power;  and  that  so  the 
supremacy  of  a  man  intrinsically  or  conventionally 
great,  is  an  outcome  of  the  average  nature;  but  I  refer 
to  the  fact  that  governmental  evolution  is  essentially 
a  result  of  social  necessities.  On  tracing  its  earliest 
stages  from  savage  life  upwards,  it  becomes  manifest 
that  even  a  ministry  is  not  the  mere  invention  of  a  king. 


210  WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION? 

It  arises  everywliere  from  that  augmentation  of  business 
which  goes  along  with  increase  of  territory  and  author- 
ity, and  entails  the  necessity  for  deputing  more  and  more 
work.  Under  its  special  aspect  it  seems  to  be  wholly  a 
result  of  the  king's  private  action,  but  under  its  general 
aspect  it  is  seen  to  be  determined  by  the  conditions  of  his 
existence.  And  it  is  so  with  governmental  institutions 
at  large.  AVithout  tracing  these  further  it  will  suffice 
to  quote  tlie  saying  of  Macintosh — ''  Constitutions  are 
not  made  but  grow." 

Of  course  inequalities  of  nature  and  consequent 
inequalities  of  relative  position  are  factors  in  social 
changes.  Of  course,  as  implied  above,  any  assertion  of 
the  approximate  equality  of  human  beings  save  in  the 
sense  that  they  are  beings  having  sets  of  faculties  com- 
mon to  them  all,  is  absurd;  and  it  is  equally  absurd  to 
suppose  that  the  unlikenesses  which  exist  are  without  ef- 
fects on  social  life.  I  have  pointed  out  that  in  the  earli- 
est stages  of  social  evolution,  when  war  is  the  business  of 
life,  the  supremacy  of  a  leader  or  chief,  or  primitive 
king,  is  a  fact  of  cardinal  importance;  and  also  that  the 
initiator  of  ecclesiastical  control  is  necessarily  distin- 
guished from  others  "  by  knowledge  and  intellectual 
capacity."  The  beginnings  of  industrial  evolution  are 
also  ascribed  by  me  to  differences  of  individual  capacity; 
as  instance  the  following  passages  from  that  part  of  the 
Principles  of  Sociology  which  deals  with  Industrial  In- 
stitutions. 

^^  The  natural  selection  of  occupations  has  for  its 
primary  cause  certain  original  diiforences  between  indi- 
viduals, partly  physical,  partly  psychical.  Let  us  for 
brevity's  sake  call  this  the  physio-psychological  cause." 
(§  730.) 


WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION?  211 

"  That  among  the  fully-civilized  there  are  in  like 
manner  specializations  of  function  caused  by  natural 
aptitudes,  needs  no  showing:  professions  and  crafts  are 
often  thus  determined  .  .  .  occupations  of  relatively 
skilled  kinds  having  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  most 
intelligent."     (§  731.) 

"  Speaking  generally,  the  man  who,  among  primi- 
tive peoples,  becomes  ruler,  is  at  once  a  man  of  power 
and  a  man  of  sagacity :  his  sagacity  being  in  large  meas- 
ure the  cause  of  his  supremacy.  We  may  therefore  in- 
fer that  as  his  political  rule,  though  chiefly  guided  by  his 
own  interests,  is  in  part  guided  by  the  interests  of  his 
people,  so  his  industrial  rule,  though  having  for  its  first 
end  to  enrich  himself,  has  for  its  second  end  the  pros- 
perity of  industry  at  large.  It  is  a  fair  inference  that 
on  the  average  his  greater  knowledge  expresses  itself 
in  orders  which  seem,  and  sometimes  are,  beneficial." 
(§770.) 

^'  In  its  beginnings  slavery  commonly  implies  some 
kind  of  inferiority."     (§  795.) 

"  Considered  as  a  form  of  industrial  regulation, 
slavery  has  been  natural  to  early  stages  of  conflicts  and 
consolidations."     (§  800.) 

^'  The  rise  of  slavery  exhibits  in  its  primary  form  the 
differentiation  of  the  regulative  part  of  a  society  from 
the  operative  part."     (§  798.) 

The  recognition  of  these  effects  of  individual  differences, 
especially  in  early  stages,  may  rightly  go  along  with  the 
assertion  that  all  the  large  traits  of  social  structure  are 
otherwise  determined — that  all  those  great  components 
of  a  society  which  carry  on  the  various  industries,  mak- 
ing the  life  of  the  whole  possible,  all  those  specialized 
classes  which  have  established  and  maintained  the  inter- 
dependence of  the  producing  structures,  by  facilitating 
and  regulating  the  exchange  of  their  products,  have 
arisen  from  the  play  of  aggregate  forces,  constituted  of 


212  WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION? 

men's  desires  directed  by  their  respective  sets  of  circum- 
stances. Mr.  Mallock  alleges  that  the  great  fact  of 
human  inequality — the  fact  that  there  is  a  minority 
''  more  gifted  and  efficient  than  the  majority  " — is  the 
fundamental  fact  from  which  ^^  the  main  structural 
characteristics  of  all  civilized  societies  spring.''  *  That 
he  should  assert  this  in  presence  of  all  the  evidence 
which  the  Principles  of  Sociology  puts  before  him,  is,  to 
use  the  weakest  word,  surprising.  If  his  assertion  be 
true,  however,  the  way  of  demonstrating  its  truth  lies 
open  before  him.  In  Volumes  II  and  III  of  the  Prnn- 
ciples  of  Sociology,  several  groups  of  institutions,  pre- 
sented by  every  developed  society,  are  dealt  with  under 
the  heads.  Political,  Ecclesiastical,  Professional,  Indus- 
trial: seventy-one  chapters  being  included  in  them. 
Each  chapter  treats  of  some  aspect,  some  division  or  sub- 
division, of  the  phenomena  grouped  under  the  general 
head.  Instead  of  the  Industrial  Institutions  discussed 
above,  suppose  that  Mr.  Mallock  takes  a  group  not 
touched  upon — Professional  Institutions.  The  thesis 
worked  out  in  the  part  so  entitled  is  that  all  the  profes- 
sions are  differentiated  from  the  priesthood;  and  the 
differentiation  is  tacitly  represented  as  due  to  the  slow 
operation  of  those  natural  causes  which  lead  to  special- 
izations of  function  throughout  the  whole  social  aggre- 
gate. If  Mr.  Mallock  is  right,  then  of  the  chapters 
dealing  with  the  ten  professions  enumerated,  each  is 
wrong  by  omitting  to  say  anything  about  the  great  man, 
political,  industrial,  or  other,  Avho  set  up  the  differentia- 
tion or  from  time  to  time  consciously  gave  it  a  more  pro- 
nounced character — who  thought  that  it  would  be  well 
that  there  should  be  a  separate  medical  class,  or  a  sopa- 
*  Nineteenth  Century,  pp.  314-315, 


WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION!  213 

rate  teaching  class,  or  a  separate  artist  class,  and  then 
carried  his  thought  into  effect.  Mr.  Mallock's  course  is 
simply  to  take  each  of  these  chapters  and  show  how, 
by  the  recognition  of  the  supplementary  factor  on  which 
he  insists,  the  conclusions  of  the  chapter  are  transformed. 
If  he  does  this  he  will  do  more  than  by  merely  asserting 
that  my  views  of  social  evolution  are  wrong  because  the 
"  great  fact  of  human  inequality  "  ^'  is  systematically 
and  ostentatiously  ignored." 

If  in  his  title  Mr.  Mallock  had,  instead  of  ^'  Evolu- 
tion," written  Social  Sustentation,  the  general  argument 
of  his  book  would  have  been  valid.  If,  further,  he  had 
alleged  that  social  sustentation  is  essential  to  social  evo- 
lution, and  that  in  the  absence  of  processes  facilitating 
social  sustentation  social  evolution  cannot  take  place,  no 
one  could  have  gainsaid  his  conclusion.  And  if  he  had 
inferred  that  whoever  improves  these  processes  betters 
the  conditions  which  favour  social  evolution,  his  infer- 
ence would  have  been  true.  But  this  admission  may  be 
made  without  admitting  that  the  men  who  directly  or  in- 
directly further  sustentation,  or  who  improve  the  qual- 
ity of  the  social  units,  are  the  agents  who  determine  and 
direct  social  evolution.  An  account  of  their  doings  in 
no  way  constitutes  an  account  of  that  social  transforma- 
tion from  an  indefinite  incoherent  homogeneity  to  a  defi- 
nite coherent  heterogeneity,  in  which  the  evolution  of  a 
society  essentially  consists. 

Moreover  Mr.  Mallock  is  justified  in  contending  that 
the  great  man — discoverer,  inventor,  teacher,  adminis- 
trator, or  other — may  equitably  receive  all  the  reward 
which,  under  the  principle  of  contract,  flows  to  him  as 
the  result  of  his  superiority;  and  that  disregard  of  his 


214  WHAT  IS  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION? 

claim  by  the  mass  of  men  is  alike  inequitable  and  un- 
grateful. This  is  the  position  I  have  myself  taken,  as 
witness  the  following: — 

^'  Even  were  an  invention  of  no  benefit  to  society 
unless  thrown  open  to  unbought  use,  there  would  still  be 
no  just  ground  for  disregarding  the  inventor's  claim; 
any  more  than  for  disregarding  the  claim  of  one  who 
labours  on  his  farm  for  his  own  benefit  and  not  for  public 
benefit.  But  as  it  is,  society  unavoidably  gains  immense- 
ly more  than  the  inventor  gains.  Before  he  can  receive 
any  advantage  from  his  new  process  or  apparatus,  he 
must  confer  advantages  on  his  fellow-men — must  either 
supply  them  with  a  better  article  at  the  price  usually 
charged,  or  the  same  article  at  a  lower  price.  If  he 
fails  to  do  this,  his  invention  is  a  dead  letter;  if  he  does 
it,  he  makes  over  to  the  world  at  large  nearly  all  the  new 
mine  of  wealth  he  has  opened.  By  the  side  of  the  profits 
which  came  to  Watt  from  his  patents,  place  the  profits 
which  his  improvements  in  the  steam-engine  have  since 
brought  to  his  own  nation  and  to  all  nations,  and  it  be- 
comes manifest  that  the  inventor's  share  is  infinitesimal 
compared  wdth  the  share  mankind  takes.  And  yet  there 
are  not  a  few  who  would  appropriate  even  his  infinitesi- 
mal share !  "  " 

Had  Mr.  Mallock  recognised  the  fundamental  distinc- 
tion I  have  pointed  out  between  social  sustentation,  life, 
activity,  enlightenment,  &c.,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
development  of  social  structures  on  the  other,  his  polemic 
against  socialists  and  collectivists  would  have  been  equal- 
ly effective,  and  he  would  not  have  entailed  upon  me  an 
expenditure  of  time  and  energy  which  I  can  ill  spare. 

*  Justice,  pp.  110-111. 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


THE    LAXD    QUESTIOK 

In  1892  Mr.  Henry  George,  whose  work  Progress 
and  Poverty  had  made  hhn  widely  known,  published 
a  volume  entitled  A.  Perplexed  Philosopher,  contain- 
ing an  elaborate  vituperation  of  me  for  an  alleged 
abandonment  of  the  view  I  had  set  forth  in  Social 
Statics  concerning  land-ownership,  and  ascribing  this 
abandonment  to  unworthy  motives.  Many  attempts 
were  made  to  draw  me  into  a  controversy,  but  I  re- 
mained silent  until,  nearly  two  years  after,  a  grave 
misstatement  concerning  my  attitude,  made  in  an  Eng- 
lish daily  paper,  prompted  me  to  say  something.  My 
letter  became  the  text  for  various  further  misrepre- 
sentations, until  at  length  I  found  it  needful  to  issue, 
in  America  and  here,  a  disproof  of  the  allegations  made. 
This  took  the  form  of  a  double-columned  pamphlet  con- 
taining, side  by  side,  quotations  from  my  early  work 
Social  Statics  and  from  my  recent  work  Justice,  prov- 
ing that  no  such  change  as  that  alleged  had  taken  place. 
As  the  misconception  generated  at  that  time  has  doubt- 
less in  many  minds  survived,  and  as  the  same  miscon- 
ception may  be  fallen  into  by  others,  I  decide  to  re- 
produce here,  in  a  permanent  form,  the  preface  and 
postscript  to  this  pamphlet,  which  briefly  set  forth  the 
essential  points. 

A  profound  misbelief  respecting  the  difference  be- 
tween my  original  view  concerning  landownership  and 


216  THE  LAND  QUESTlOlSr. 

my  present  view  lias  been  widely  diffused,  and  it  seems 
desirable  that  this  misbelief  should  be  dissipated  by  a 
simple  statement  of  what  the  original  view  was  and 
what  the  present  view  is. 

(1)  I  originally  contended  that  the  land  could  not 
become  individual  property,  but  was  the  property  of  the 
community,  and  that  this  is,  in  fact,  the  current  legal 
doctrine  in  England,  since  the  State  assumes  the  power 
to  appropriate  any  land  it  pleases  on  making  compensa- 
tion :  a  like  power  to  appropriate  land  for  public  use  and 
benefit  subject  to  a  like  condition  being,  I  believe,  as- 
serted in  the  American  national  and  State  Constitu- 
tions, and  held  by  the  Courts  to  be  an  inextinguishable 
attribute  of  sovereignty  appertaining  to  every  inde- 
pendent government.  This  doctrine  I  continue  to  hold; 
and,  in  Justice^  I  have  not  only  adhered  to  it,  but  have 
emphasized  it  and  strengthened  it  by  numerous  facts, 
showing  what  is  the  tenure  of  land  in  early  communi- 
ties, and  that  such  tenure  is  of  the  kind  alleged — owner- 
ship by  the  community.  In  these  passages  it  is  shown 
that  among  the  uncivilized  "  private  ownership  of  land 
is  unknown";  that  originally  among  the  civilized  the 
relation  of  men  to  the  soil  "  was  one  of  joint  ownership 
and  not  one  of  indi\adual  ow^nership  " ;  that  the  cause  of 
the  change  from  this  original  state  "  must  have  been  the 
exercise  of  direct  or  indirect  force — sometimes  internal 
but  chiefly  external " ;  that  in  England  "  no  absolute 
ownership  of  land  is  recognised  by  our  law  books  except 
in  the  Crown  ";  and  that  the  changes  which  have  "  re- 
placed the  supreme  power  of  the  monarch  by  the  su- 
preme power  of  the  people  have,  by  implication,  re- 
placed the  monarch's  supreme  ownership  of  the  land  by 
the  people's  supreme  ownership  of  the  land."     Here, 


THE  LAND  QUESTION.  ^17 

then,  there  is  not  the  least  surrendering  of  the  original 
doctrine,  but  rather  an  enforcement  of  it. 

(2)  Along  with  this  assertion  of  the  claim  of  the 
community  to  the  land  itself,  in  Social  Statics  I  made 
the  further  assertion  that  the  private  owner  has  a  claim 
to  all  that  value  given  to  the  land  by  clearing,  draining, 
cultivation,  and  all  tlie  appliances  standing  upon  it  for 
carrying  on  food-production.  Here  are  two  passages 
from  the  chapter  on  ^'  The  Eight  to  the  Use  of  the 
Earth,''  clearly  showing  this. 

(a)  ^'  Well,  but  surely  you  would  not  eject  me  with- 
out making  some  recompense  for  the  great  additional 
value  I  have  given  to  this  tract,  by  reducing  what  was  a 
wilderness  into  fertile  fields?  You  would  not  turn  me 
adrift  and  deprive  me  of  all  the  benefit  of  those  years 
of  toil  it  has  cost  me  to  bring  this  spot  into  its  present 
state? 

"  Of  course  not:  just  as  in  the  case  of  a  house,  you 
would  have  an  equitable  title  to  compensation  from  the 
proprietor  for  repairs  and  new  fittings,  so  the  community 
cannot  justly  take  possession  of  this  estate  without  pay- 
ing for  all  that  you  have  done  to  it.  This  extra  worth 
which  your  labour  has  imparted  to  it  is  fairly  yours; 
and  although  you  have,  without  leave,  busied  yourself 
in  bettering  w^hat  belongs  to  the  community,  yet  no 
doubt  the  community  will  duly  discharge  your  claim. 
But  admitting  this  is  quite  a  different  thing  from  recog- 
nising your  right  to  the  land  itself.  It  may  be  true  that 
you  are  entitled  to  compensation  for  the  improvements 
this  inclosure  has  received  at  your  hands,  and  at  the 
same  time  it  may  be  equally  true  that  no  act,  form,  pro- 
ceeding, or  ceremony  can  make  this  inclosure  your  pri- 
vate property." 

*  *  *  *  * 

(h)   "  But,  unfortunately,  most  of  our  present  land- 
owners are  men  who  have,  either  mediately  or  immedi- 
15 


218  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 

ately — either  by  tlieir  own  acts  or  by  the  acts  of  their 
ancestors — given  for  their  estates  equivalents  of  hon- 
estly earned  wealth,  believing  that  they  were  investing 
their  savings  in  a  legitimate  manner.  To  justly  esti- 
mate and  liquidate  the  claims  of  such  is  one  of  the  most 
intricate  problems  society  will  one  day  have  to  solve. 
But  with  this  perplexity  and  our  extrication  from  it 
abstract  morality  has  no  concern.  Men  ha\dng  got 
themselves  into  the  dilemma  by  disobedience  to  the  law, 
must  get  out  of  it  as  well  as  they  can,  and  with  as  little 
injury  to  the  landed  class  as  may  be." 

The  view  thus  set  forth  in  Social  Statics  is  the  view 
still  held  by  me.     Here  again  there  is  no  change. 

(3)  What  then  is  the  change?  Of  course  when,  in 
Social  Statics,  resumption  of  the  land  by  the  community 
was  shown  to  be  equitable  and  advocated  as  desirable, 
it  was  on  the  assumption  that  the  transaction,  after  mak- 
ing compensation,  would  leave  a  balance  of  benefit  to  the 
community.  It  is  clear  that  if  I  had  thought  that  the 
change,  though  equitable,  would  entail  a  loss  on  the  com- 
munity, I  should  not  have  held  that  the  community 
ought  to  bring  this  loss  upon  itself,  but  should  have  held 
that  though,  as  a  matter  of  abstract  equity,  it  might 
properly  retake  possession  of  the  land,  it  would  be  impoli- 
tic to  do  this  if  the  burden  of  compensation  would  out- 
weigh the  benefit  of  possession.  But  of  late  years,  on 
thinking  over  the  matter,  it  has  become  clear  to  me  that 
the  burden  of  compensation  would  outweigh  the  benefit 
of  possession,  if  the  compensation  were  anything  like 
equitable  in  amount.  Hence  I  have  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  change  of  tenure  from  private  to  public 
would  be  impolitic.  Respecting  my  original  view  in 
Social  Statics  I  have  said: — "  Moreover,  I  did  not  clear- 
ly see  what  would  be  implied  by  the  giving  of  compen- 


THE  LAND  QUESTION.  219 

sation  for  all  that  value  which  the  labour  of  ages  has 
given  to  the  land.'' 

(4)  It  is  true  that  in  further  qualification  of  my  origi- 
nal view  I  have  pointed  out  (more  especially  referring  to 
England)  the  untruth  of  the  prevailing  assumption  that 
the  existing  land-owners  are  either  those  who  made  the 
misappropriation  or  the  descendants  of  those  who  made 
it,  and  have  further  pointed  out  that  among  the  people 
who  are  supposed  to  be  robbed  exist,  in  large  measure, 
tliose  who  are  the  descendants  of  the  robbers;  and  that 
thus  the  anger  everywhere  fostered  is  misdirected.  And 
I  have  also  pointed  out  (again  in  respect  of  England) 
that  if  anything  like  the  proposed  restoration  were  to  be 
carried  out,  it  would  require  that  England  should  be 
handed  over  to  the  Celts  of  Wales  and  Scotland,  as  the 
only  people  who  have  any  claim  (though  a  disputable 
claim)  to  be  regarded  as  original  proprietors.  It  is  also 
true  that  I  have  pointed  out  to  how  large  an  extent  in 
England,  since  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  the  landless  class 
has  shared  in  the  produce  of  the  land  under  the  Poor 
Law,  and  that  therefore,  if  we  go  back  upon  the  past, 
this  fact  must  be  taken  into  account.  But  all  these 
further  considerations  are  put  in  the  form  of  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  a  change,  and  are  not  at  all  held  to  in- 
validate the  two  original  propositions — (1)  that  the  land 
itself  belongs  to  the  community,  and  (2)  that  it  cannot 
be  resumed  by  the  community  without  compensation  for 
the  artificial  value  given  to  it.  These  were  my  original 
views:  these  are  my  views  still. 

(5)  It  should  be  added,  in  further  explanation,  that 
the  views  originally  held  by  me,  as  well  as  the  modified 
views  I  now  hold,  are  not,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  at 
variance  with  the  views  held  by  the  landed  classes  in 


220  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 

England,  but,  contrariwise,  are  views  wLicli  tliey  liave 
themselves  publicly  enunciated  through  certain  repre- 
sentative members  of  their  class.  The  Council  of  the 
Liberty  and  Property  Defence  League,  on  which  sit  sev- 
eral peers  and  two  judges,  said,  in  their  report  for  1889, 
that  '^  the  land  can  of  course  be  ^  resumed '  on  payment 
of  full  compensation,  and  managed  by  the  people  if  they 
so  will  it."  Supreme  ownership  by  the  State  is  fully 
recognised,  and  the  only  reason  urged  for  maintaining 
the  existing  system  of  land-holding  is  the  badness  of  the 
alternative  system — administration  by  public  officials. 
They  do  not,  however,  name  the  primary  obstacle  to  the 
proposed  change — the  enormous  cost  of  equitable  com- 
pensation, bringing  to  the  community  not  gain  but  loss. 
These  representations  of  my  views,  old  and  new,  are 
not  matters  of  opinion,  but  are  matters  of  fact  which  any- 
body can  ascertain  by  referring  to  early  editions  of 
Social  Statics  and  to  Justice.  They  are  there  in  print, 
not  to  be  gainsaid  or  argued  away. 

[ITere  in  tlie  original  pamjjhlet  followed  in  double 
columns  the  extracts  from  Social  Statics  and  Justice 
above  referred  to.'] 

'Not  unnaturally,  those  who  discuss  the  existing  land- 
tenure  bring  into  the  foreground  the  instances  in  which 
it  leads  to  the  greatest  anomalies — the  greatest  contrasts 
of  w^ealth  and  status  among  men.  The  relatively  few 
striking  facts  are  taken  as  typical  of  the  whole  system, 
and  it  is  forgotten  that  the  immense  majority  of  the 
facts  are  not  striking — present  no  such  grievous  incon- 
gruities. Land  in  England  is  not  all  held  by  dukes, 
earls,  and  baronets,  though  those  who  cherish  indigna- 
tion against  land-owners  appear  tacitly  to  assume  that 


THE  LAND  QUESTION.  221 

it  is.  Contrariwise,  an  immensely  larger  proportion  of 
land-owners  possess  but  moderate  quantities,  and  those 
who  possess  small  quantities  are  a  hundred  times  in  num- 
ber those  who  possess  great  quantities.  Here,  from  an 
essay  on  ''  Freedom  of  Land,"  by  Mr.  Shaw  Lefevre, 
M.  P.,*  is  a  table  showing  this: — 

1,000  persons  own  about  30,000,000  acres,  averaging  30,000  each. 

4,000       "  "  20,000,000    "  "  5,000    " 

10,000       "  "  10,000,000    "  "  1,000    " 

50,000       "  "  9,000,000    "  "  130    " 

130,000       "  "  1,750,000    "  "  13    " 

If  we  ask — Who  are  those  constituting  a  consider- 
able proportion  of  these  small  land-owners?  the  answer 
discloses  a  great  obstacle  to  that  abolition  of  private 
ownership  without  compensation  which  many  now  urge. 
Fifty  years  ago  or  thereabouts  arose  a  movement,  politi- 
cal in  origin,  for  the  establishment  of  ''  Freehold-land 
Societies."  The  aim  was  to  give  to  artisans  and  others 
of  like  position  voting  power  in  county  elections.  Es- 
tates were  purchased  in  suburbs  of  large  towns  and  cut 
up  into  portions  of  such  size  as  would  qualify  the  pos- 
sessors to  vote;  and  by  payment  in  instalments  these 
numerous  plots  were  purchased  by  men  who  were  in  the 
majority  of  cases  wage-earners.  Tens  of  thousands  of 
these  buyers  of  small  properties,  on  which  in  many  cases 
they  built  houses,  were  manual  workers  of  one  or  other 
kind — workers,  most  of  them,  proved  by  the  result  to  be 
diligent  and  provident.  It  is  true  that  nowadays  there 
has  grown  up  the  notion,  fostered  by  trade-unions,  that  a 
man  who  works  better  or  longer  than  others  and  so  gets 
more  money,  is  worthy  of  reprobation  because  he  disad- 
vantages his  competitors.  But  in  the  days  when  "  Free- 
hold-land Societies "  were  established  there  prevailed 
*  English  and  Irish  Land  Questions,  p.  2. 


222  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 

the  old-fashioned  idea  that  it  is  meritorious  to  earn  extra 
money  and  provide  well  for  dependents — to  make  wife 
comfortable,  educate  children,  and,  if  possible,  to  leave 
both  with  some  provision  at  death:  and  there  still  re- 
main some  who  think  that  conduct  of  this  kind  is  praise- 
worthy. But,  praiseworthy  or  not,  here  are  the  facts. 
The  men  who,  by  persistent  labour  or  provident  habits, 
or  both,  saved  enough  to  buy  these  plots  of  land,  are 
either  now  living  as  old  men  or  have  died  and  left  their 
small  properties  to  widows  and  children.  Shall  these 
small  properties  now  be  taken  away  and  nothing  given 
in  return?  They  were  acquired  by  self-denying  efforts 
continued  through  long  years,  and  with  the  assent  and 
approval  of  all  around.  ]^either  the  owners  nor  their 
fellows,  nor  any  other  persons,  thought  that  the  titles 
were  any  more  invalid  than  the  titles  to  furniture, 
clothes,  and  tools.  What,  then,  is  to  be  done?  Owner- 
ship of  these  small  plots  stands  on  the  same  footing  as 
ownership  of  great  estates.  In  both  cases  portions  of 
land  have  been  purchased,  if  not  by  the  living  possessors, 
then  by  predecessors.  "No  more  in  the  one  case  than  in 
the  other  have  the  proprietors  or  their  ancestors  taken 
the  land  by  force  or  fraud ;  for  of  those  possessors  whose 
ancestors  date  back  to  the  Conquest  few,  if  any,  remain. 
If,  then,  equity  requires  that  there  shall  be  expropria- 
tion of  the  large  landed  proprietors  without  compensa- 
tion, it  also  requires  that  there  shall  be  such  expropria- 
tion of  these  small  landed  proprietors.  Surely  everyone 
must  see  that  there  would  be  much  more  of  iniquity  than 
of  equity  in  such  a  transaction. 

The  beliefs  implied  in  the  foregoing  pages — (1)  that 
a  reversion  to  public  land-o\\T:iership  could  not  justly  be 


THE  LAND  QUESTION.  223 

effected  without  compensation  to  private  owners;  (2) 
that  the  making  of  adequate  compensation  would  bring 
more  loss  than  gain  to  the  community;  (3)  that  the 
equitable  adjustment  of  compensation  would  be  ex- 
tremely difficult;  and  (4)  that  the  administration  of  the 
land  as  public  property  by  State  officials  would  entail 
all  the  vices  of  officialism — by  no  means  involve  the 
belief  that  private  land-ownership  should  continue  with- 
out change.  Few  will  deny  that  the  possession  of  vast 
tracts  by  single  individuals,  and,  in  some  cases,  the  de- 
votion of  those  tracts  to  purposes  at  variance  with  public 
interests,  is  a  great  evil.  It  is  true  that  the  holding  of 
land  in  considerable  areas  has,  by  facilitating  the  in- 
vestment of  capital  and  the  use  of  improved  appliances, 
increased  the  production  of  food  and  economized  labour; 
but  such  advantages  are  better  achieved  on  liioderate 
estates  than  on  great  ones;  no  such  defence  can  be  made 
for  possession  of  fifty  thousand  acres  by  a  single  person. 
But,  though  the  vesting  of  a  whole  county  in  a  duke  is 
a  scandal  calling  for  remedy,  a  fundamental  change  in 
land-tenure  is  not  required  for  remedying  it.  The  cus- 
tom of  primogeniture,  established  in  feudal  times  as  a 
guarantee  for  the  due  rendering  of  military  service  to 
a  suzerain,  has  long  since  lost  its  raison  d'etre.  With 
disappearance  of  it  would  come  dispersal  of  these  inordi- 
nately large  private  possessions,  which,  tied  up  in  single 
hands,  are  in  many  cases  so  burdened  by  fixed  claims 
as  to  prevent  the  expenditure  of  capital  on  them, 
and  are  so  made  relatively  unproductive.  If,  along 
with  the  abolition  of  this  vicious  system,  there  were 
enacted  a  rational  system  of  land  transfer,  most  of  the 
glaring  evils  which  now  shock  the  moral  sense  would 
cease. 


224  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 

Of  other  evils  incident  to  present  arrangements  one 
is  tlie  misuse  of  land.  Where  the  land  has  long  been  in 
private  hands  there  seems  difficulty  in  imposing  any 
new  conditions  of  ownership.  Yet  the  general  truth 
that  the  ultimate  ownership  vests  in  the  community  and 
may  be  resumed  on  making  compensation,  seems  to  carry 
with  it  such  latent  power  over  the  private  owner  as  may 
fitly  be  used  to  protect  public  interests.  The  Statutes  of 
Mortmain  furnish  a  precedent  for  this  interpretation. 
They  embody  an  interdict  on  that  absolute  land-owner- 
ship which  is  assumed  by  permanently  devoting  land 
to  purposes  individually  willed,  but  which  may  not  be 
socially  beneficial.  And  if  this  precedent  is  to  be  fol- 
lowed, then  there  is  warranted  an  interdict  upon  those 
modes  of  dealing  with  land  w^hich  gratify  the  owner 
regardless  of  detrimental  effects  to  the  community,  l^o 
one  can  question  that  in  territories  where  land  has  not 
yet  been  parcelled  out,  the  community  may  impose 
whatever  conditions  of  ownership  it  thinks  well — condi- 
tions having  in  view  such  qualified  use  of  the  land  as 
may  duly  regard  the  welfare  alike  of  the  present  genera- 
tion and  of  future  generations.  And  if,  in  unappropri- 
ated regions,  the  general  body  of  men  may  rightly  exer- 
cise this  power  over  individual  men,  it  is  reasonable  to 
infer  that  in  long-settled  countries  the  indestructible 
title  of  the  public  warrants  it  in  restraining  private  own- 
ers from  mischievous  uses  of  land. 

But  it  is  to  be  feared  that  the  vices  of  officialism 
would  negative  the  benefits  sought.  When  we  see  that 
alike  in  despotic  Russia,  in  constitutional  Italy,  as  well 
as  in  democratic  France  and  America,  public  agents  of 
all  grades,  from  ministers  down  to  police  officers,  cannot 
be  trusted — very  often  will  not  do  the  right  thing  w^ith- 


THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN.  225 

out  a  bribe,  and  will  perpetually  do  the  wrong  tiling 
when  a  bribe  is  given — we  can  scarcely  expect  public 
oversight  of  land-owners  to  be  efficient.  The  required 
State-machinery,  like  all  forms  of  State-machinery,  de- 
pends for  its  well-working  on  the  quality  of  the  citizens 
out  of  whom  it  is  framed;  and  where  that  quality  is 
inferior,  well-working  of  the  machinery,  no  matter  how 
ingenious,  is  impossible. 

]!!^evertheless,  many  evils  which  cannot  be  cured  may 
be  mitigated.  And  if,  as  we  must  do,  we  recognize  the 
right  of  the  State  to  restrain  the  landlord  from  using 
his  land  in  ways  at  variance  with  public  welfare,  we  may 
at  the  same  time  hold  that  there  are  cases  in  which  it  is 
both  politic  and  practicable  to  exercise  that  right. 


THE   METEIC    SYSTEM   AGAIK 

A  year  after  the  publication  of  the  letters  on  the 
Metric  System  reproduced  in  the  foregoing  part  of 
this  volume,  those  interested  in  forcing  forward  the 
adoption  of  the  system  recommenced  their  agitation. 
One  result  was  that  over  the  signature  "  A  Citizen,"  I 
published  four  more  letters  in  The  Times  containing 
arguments  reinforcing  those  before  used.  They  ap- 
peared on  March  28,  April  4,  8,  and  13,  1899,  and  are 
here  severally  numbered  in  the  order  of  their  appear- 
ance. 

I.  "  This  plan  will  be  beneficial  to  me.  Please 
therefore  make  a  law  forcing  me  to  adopt  it." 

An  absurd  position ;  yet  a  position  taken  by  the  Brit- 


226  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN. 

isli  merchant  as  represented  by  chambers  of  commerce. 
He  says  that  some  of  his  foreign  transactions  are  im- 
peded by  his  habit  of  using  British  weights,  measures, 
and  values.  If  he  were  obliged  to  follow  the  metric 
system,  orders  from  certain  buyers  abroad  would  be  fa- 
cilitated and  Customs  officers  at  certain  foreign  ports 
would  not  raise  the  difficulties  they  now  do. 

Strangely  enough  these  things  which  he  wants  made 
imperative  are  things  he  can  do  voluntarily.  Though 
his  business  at  large  is  carried  on  in  British  weights  and 
measures  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  him  from  carrying 
on  his  foreign  business  in  metric  ones.  Even  were  there 
a  legal  impediment  it  would  be  needful  only,  along 
with  the  actual  contract  in  British  terms,  to  give  more 
conspicuously  in  parentheses  the  equivalent  quantities 
and  values  in  metric  terms  to  evade  it.  ^o  trouble 
w^ould  be  entailed  further  than  would  be  met  by  a  dou- 
ble-columned list  of  equivalents  at  the  clerk's  elbow, 
enabling  him,  by  simple  inspection,  to  write  out  his 
quantities  in  both  terms. 

Either  these  merchants  and  their  exponents  are 
short-sighted  to  a  degree  that  passes  comprehension,  or 
else  they  ascribe  to  the  British  public  a  stupidity  greater 
than  is  warranted.  If,  otherwise,  they  are  too  idle  or 
too  unenterprising  to  take  the  trouble  needful  for  con- 
veniencing  their  foreign  customers,  and  if,  consequently, 
they  lose  business  and  are  in  danger  of  going  to  the  wall, 
then  the  comment  is — Let  them  go  to  the  wall.  We 
shall  not  benefit  by  an  increasing  population  of  inca- 
pables. 

But  now  comes  the  marvellous  fact.  That  these 
exporters  may  be  forced  to  adopt  a  system  which  they 
say  would  be  advantageous,  and  which  they  can  adopt 


THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN.  227 

without  being  forced,  all  other  people  must  be  forced  to 
adopt  it  too.  The  entire  process  of  retail  business  must 
be  revolutionized  that  their  wholesale  business  with 
certain  foreign  countries  may  be  done  with  less  friction. 

It  is  undeniable  that,  affording  smaller  facilities  for 
division  into  aliquot  parts,  the  metric  system  would  be 
inconvenient  for  both  buyers  and  sellers  of  small  quan- 
tities. Mneteen-twentieths  of  the  trading  transactions 
throughout  the  kingdom  are  in  shops,  hotels,  and  tav- 
erns, and  of  these  many  would  be  hindered,  while  few,  if 
any,  would  be  made  easier.  J^or  is  this  all.  These 
idealogues  say  to  the  vast  populations  of  traders,  "  You 
must  change  all  your  implements  for  dividing  out  quan- 
tities." Along  with  wholesale  dealers  and  large  shop- 
keepers, the  publicans  and  hucksters  throughout  him- 
dreds  of  towns  and  thousands  of  villages  are  to  throw 
away  their  old  appliances  and  get  new  ones;  while  they 
and  all  their  customers  must  go  to  school  again  that  they 
may  learn  fresh  waj^s  of  making  their  exchanges. 

And  this  introduces  the  political  aspect  of  the  mat- 
ter. Ten  thousand  persons  intend  to  make  20  million 
persons  change  their  habits.  The  ten  thousand  are  the 
men  of  science  (by  no  means  all),  the  chambers  of  com- 
merce, and  the  leaders  of  some  trade  unions — leaders 
only,  for  the  question  has  never  been  put  to  the  vote  of 
the  mass.  The  20  millions  are  the  men  and  women  of 
England  with  those  children  who  are  old  enough  to  be 
sent  shopping.  Ten  thousand  is  an  over-estimate  of  the 
combined  bodies  who  are  forcing  on  the  metric  system, 
and  20  millions  is  an  under-estimate  of  the  numbers  to 
be  coerced. 

"  But  the  change  is  to  be  enacted  by  Parliament,"  it 
will  be  said.     True,  by  a  Parliament  which  has  received 


228  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN. 

from  the  people  no  authority  whatever  to  enact  the 
change.  It  came  into  power  to  oppose  Home  Ivule  and 
the  local  veto,  not  a  word  in  any  constituency  having 
been  said  about  changing  weights  and  measures,  and  the 
proposed  revolution  never  having  been  dreamed  of  by 
electors.  And  now,  not  having  in  any  w^ay  consulted 
the  nation,  it  is  proposed  that  Parliament  shall  make 
a  change  which,  if  put  to  a  plebiscite  or  the  referendum, 
would  bring  millions  of  "  Xoes  "  amid  which  the  few 
"  Ayes  ''  would  be  utterly  lost. 

"  Yes,  but  we  know  better  what  is  for  the  people's 
good  than  they  do,  and  we  will  force  them  to  adopt  it." 
Exactly.  That  was  the  reason  assigned  in  past  times  by 
the  Pope  and  his  priests,  who,  to  secure  the  eternal  sal- 
vation of  men,  forced  on  them  prescribed  beliefs.  And 
this  secular  popery,  like  the  sacred  popery,  assumes 
infallibility;  since  nothing  less  than  infallibility  could 
warrant  any  body  of  men  in  dictating  to  all  mankind 
for  all  time.  Por  once  universally  established,  the 
metric  system  could  never  be  changed. 

And  this  is  to  be  done  among  a  people  who  say  they 
are  self-governed ! 

"  But  surely  it  is  not  needful  that  electoral  approval 
must  be  had  for  every  detail  of  legislation?  " 

"Detail!"  Yes,  that  is  the  word.  We  are  to  re- 
gard the  forcible  changing  of  all  men's  and  women's 
daily  habits  as  a  detail!  It  is  not  denied  that  under  our 
system  of  government  the  consent  of  the  nation  must  be 
asked  for  all  legislative  changes  of  importance.  When, 
for  instance,  a  recent  Ministry  went  to  the  country  on 
the  question  of  Home  Rule  for  Ireland,  and  when,  hav- 
ing obtained  a  majority,  Mr.  Gladstone  contended  that 
he  had  the  "  mandate  "  of  the  electors,  there  was  a  suffi- 


THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN.  229 

ciently  clear  expression  of  this  principle.  Xow  ask  any 
number  of  electors  and  their  wives  (and  their  wives,  who 
do  most  of  the  buying,  have  surely  to  be  considered) 
which  most  interests  them — a  measure  according  Home 
Eule  to  Ireland  or  a  measure  obliging  them  to  change 
their  ways  of  buying  and  selling.  Can  any  one  doubt 
that  from  the  many  millions  of  shopkeepers  and  their 
customers  would  come  the  reply  that  they  cared  little 
about  Home  Rule  and  much  about  their  trading  con- 
veniences from  hour  to  hour.  Considered  in  relation  to 
its  influence  upon  people's  lives  this  proposed  change  in 
methods  of  buying  and  selling  is  of  more  importance 
than  nine  out  of  ten  of  the  nominally  great  questions  on 
which  the  national  will  has  to  be  consulted. 

If  the  metric  system  is  established  in  the  w^ay  its 
advocates  intend,  it  will  be  by  deliberately  trampling  on 
the  representative  system. 

II.  "  S.A.M.,"  w^ho  quotes  the  estimate  that  "  two 
years  of  a  child's  schooling  would  be  saved  by  the  com- 
plete adoption  of  the  decimal  system,"  and  says  that  he 
"  cannot  judge  whether  this  is  an  over-estimate  or  not," 
discredits  his  own  judgment  so  profoundly  that  it  seems 
hardly  needful  to  w^eigh  his  arguments.  Turning  to  the 
letter  of  "  An  Engineer,"  let  me  first  comment  on  his 
remark  that  trading  transactions  are  not  impeded  by  the 
decimal  system  because  quarters  can  be  made  by  using 
coins  and  measures  representing  0.25.  The  reply  is 
that,  if  so,  the  metric  system  is  justified  by  departing 
from  the  metric  system.  Decimals  know  of  no  quarters, 
and  if  the  metric  system  takes  two-tenths  and  five-hun- 
dredths  that  it  may  make  a  quarter,  it  simply  adopts  a 
division  foreign  to  it  and  confesses  its  unfitness. 


230  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN. 

Unhappily,  wlien  discussions  like  the  present  are  re- 
vived after  a  few  years,  facts  and  arguments  before 
assigned  are  forgotten,  and  the  work  has  to  be  done  over 
again.  Let  me  here  in  brief  space  indicate  the  leading 
points  brought  out  in  The  Times  three  years  ago. 

1.  Mankind  have  abandoned  for  industrial  and  trad- 
ing purposes  that  decimal  notation  which  they  have 
literally  at  their  fingers'  ends.  Though  the  mode  of 
counting  suggested  by  their  two  hands  remains  in  use 
for  calculation,  they  have  everywhere  fallen  into  other 
modes  for  purposes  of  production  and  exchange.  Why  is 
this?  Surely  they  did  not  give  up  the  ready-made  sys- 
tem for  other  systems  without  reason.  That  reason  was 
the  need  for  easy  divisibility. 

2.  Alike  in  the  earliest  times  and  in  the  latest  the 
wish  for  easy  divisibility  is  shown.  Those  "  wise  men 
of  the  East/'  the  Chaldeans,  to  whom  we  owe  so  much, 
adopted  a  sexagesimal  notation  wdiich,  wdiile  meeting 
other  needs,  presented  the  advantage  that  60  has  more 
varieties  of  aliquot  parts  than  any  other  number.  It 
will  divide  by  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  10,  12,  15,  20,  and  30.  The 
choice  made  by  these  early  men  of  science  is  paralleled 
by  the  choice  which  modern  men  of  industry  have  made. 
The  foot-rule,  ordinarily  so  divided  that  each,  of  its 
inches  has  halves,  quarters,  eighths,  and  often  sixteenths, 
presents,  when  taken  as  a  whole,  ten  different  sets  of 
aliquot  parts.  It  divides  into  J,  i,  ^,  J,  -J  (1^  in.),  -^ 
(1  in.),  ^  (f  in.),  ^  (1  in.),  ^V  (f  in.),  and  ^  Q  in.). 
Yet  now  extreme  divisibility,  sought  alike  by  ancient 
thinkers  and  modern  workers,  is  to  be  disregarded,  and 
we  are  to  take  as  a  basis  for  our  system  of  weights,  meas- 
ures, and  values  a  number  which  is  divisible  only  by  2 
and  5 ! 


THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN.  231 

3.  These  lessons  derived  from  practice  extending 
throughout  the  ages  are  verified  by  practice  going  on 
under  our  eyes.  The  Americans  have  a  decimalized 
money-system — dollars,  dimes,  cents.  Do  they  use  it? 
In  large  measure  they  abandon  it.  You  do  not  see 
prices  of  books  in  dollars  and  dimes.  Prices  are  quoted 
as  $1.25,  $1.75,  &c. — that  is  to  say,  dollars  and  quarter- 
dollars  and  three-quarter  dollars  are  used:  the  quarters 
and  three-quarters  being  expressed  in  a  roundabout  way 
by  tenths  and  hundredths.  Nor  is  this  all.  Whether 
it  is  still  so  I  cannot  say,  but  years  ago  the  usage  in  Cali- 
fornia was  to  state  prices  in  ^^  bits  " — about  the  eighth 
of  a  dollar  (a  division  unknown  to  the  metric  system) — a 
"  long  bit ''  being  15  cents  and  a  "  short  bit ''  being  10 
cents.  'No  change  was  given  either  way  if  the  price  did 
not  fit:  the  system  produced  indefinite  prices.  Still 
more  striking  is  the  fact  that,  in  the  very  focus  of  busi- 
ness the  New  York  Stock  Exchange,  the  decimal  divi- 
sion of  money  is  ignored — prices  are  in  dollars,  halves, 
quarters,  and  eighths.  (In  the  English  Stock  Exchange 
List  the  method  of  halving  and  re-halving  goes  down 
habitually  to  sixteenths,  and  sometimes  to  thirty-sec- 
onds.) Thus  the  facts  prove  that  even  where  it  is  estab- 
lished, the  decimal  system  as  applied  to  money  is  sup- 
planted by  another.  All  that  legal  enactment  does  is  to 
complicate  and  confuse  matters. 

4.  The  aim  of  the  metric  system  is  an  ideal  uniform- 
ity— a  good  aim  if  it  can  be  achieved  with  greater  bene- 
fits than  evils.  I  yield  to  none  in  the  love  of  method 
and  system ;  but  a  system  which,  even  if  otherwise  good, 
proposes  to  make  an  immense  revolution  to  effect  a  sym- 
metrical arrangement  and  does  not  effect  it,  is  to  be  re- 
jected.    Observe  the  facts: — 


THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN. 

First. — The  metric  system  does  not  fit  our  time- 
measures,  natural  or  artificial.  We  have  twelve  full 
moons  in  a  year  and  cannot  make  ten  months  agree  with 
them.  Further,  the  division  of  the  year  into  quarters, 
involved  in  our  social  arrangements,  has  also  a  natural 
basis — the  equinoxes  and  the  longest  and  shortest  days 
are  fixed  astronomical  facts  incongruous  wdth  numera- 
tion by  tenths.  Second. — Our  artificial  divisions  of 
time  into  12  hours  and  twice  12  hours  cannot  be 
changed.  Even  could  astronomical  and  nautical  tables 
be  all  revolutionized,  it  would  be  impossible  to  make 
people  replace  their  clocks  and  w^atches  by  decimally- 
divided  ones.  Third. — The  division  of  the  circle  must 
remain  as  it  is.  An  attempt  to  decimalize  the  quad- 
rant (which  itself  was  inconsistent,  since  a  fourth  is  not 
a  decimal  division)  has  failed;  so  that  all  calculations, 
astronomical  and  terrestrial,  into  which  degrees,  min- 
utes, and  seconds  enter,  will  continue  outside  the  system. 
Fourth. — A  kindred  obstacle  is  presented  by  the  com- 
pass, the  divisions  of  which  are  made  by  halving  and  re- 
halving.  Here  nature  again  dictates.  The  four  cardi- 
nal points,  corresponding  wdtli  four  right  angles,  cannot 
be  changed. 

And  now  observe  that  the  metric  system,  which 
would  be  bad  by  its  incompleteness,  even  if  otherw^ise 
good,  is  to  stand  in  the  way  of  a  system  which  would 
be  congruous  with  our  established  divisions,  natural  and 
artificial.  These  astronomical  twelfths  and  fourths, 
along  with  these  fourths  we  have  in  the  divisions  of  the 
circle  and  the  compass,  as  well  as  the  twelfths  we  have 
in  our  conventional  time-divisions,  all  harmonize  with  a 
system  of  notation  having  12  as  a  basis.  The  halves, 
quarters,  eighths,  twelfths  to  which  men  have  in  many 


THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN.  233 

ways  gravitated  in  their  weights,  measures,  and  values 
coincide  with  various  divisions  which  nature  has  im- 
posed, and  we  have  but  to  take  12  as  our  fundamental 
number,  using  two  additional  digits  for  10  and  11,  to 
bring  into  harmony  these  natural  and  artificial  divisions, 
without  any  sacrifice  of  those  facilities  for  calculation 
which  decimals  at  present  give. 

Such  a  change  is  pooh-poohed  as  impracticable,  and 
so  it  may  be  at  present,  though  learning  the  implied  new 
notation  in  schools  does  not  seem  much  more  difficult 
than  learning  the  metric  system.  But,  granting  the 
present  impracticability,  is  it  rational  to  infer  that  what 
is  impracticable  now  will  always  be  impracticable?  Does 
not  experience  teach  us  that  the  impossibilities  of  one 
century  become  the  facilities  of  the  next?  See  what 
a  remote  descendant  might  say  of  us,  should  the  metric 
system  be  forced  on  in  the  belief  that  because  a  better 
system  cannot  be  established  now  it  can  never  be  estab- 
lished : — 

"  What  hide-bound  imagination  these  men  of  the 
19th  century  had!  With  all  the  past  to  teach  them 
otherwise,  they  thought  that  things  beyond  their  own 
achievement  must  always  be  beyond  achievement.  They 
knew  that  to  early  men  the  communication  of  knowledge 
by  writing  was  inconceivable;  they  knew  that,  after 
men  had  learned  to  write,  the  communication  of  knowl- 
edge by  printing  was  for  long  inconceivable ;  they  knew 
that,  after  the  communication  of  knowledge  by  printing 
had  become  familiar,  communication  of  it  by  telegraph 
was  inconceivable ;  and  they  knew  that,  after  telegraph- 
ing had  become  habitual,  it  remained  inconceivable  that 
there  could  be  telegraphing  without  wires.  Yet  with 
such  facts  before  them  they  assumed  that  posterity 
would  be  able  to  do  no  more  than  themselves,  and  in- 
sisted upon  prescribing  methods  for  carrying  on  their 
16 


234  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN. 

daily  lives.  Instead  of  leaving  things  as  plastic  as  pos- 
sible, so  that  the  greater  knowledge  and  higher  capacity 
of  the  future  should  meet  with  the  fewest  obstacles  to 
improvement,  they  deliberately  made  them  rigid,  so  that 
now  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  better  method  are 
insuperable!  '' 

III.  The.  large  space  you  kindly  allow  me  will  not 
permit  of  full  answers  to  all  opponents.  A  few  words 
on  each  point  must  suffice. 

To  the  question  "  Why  have  almost  all  civilized 
nations  on  earth ''  adopted  the  metric  system,  I  reply 
that  no  nation,  civilized  or  uncivilized,  has  adopted  it. 
It  has  been  adopted  by  Governments  and  forced  on  the 
people  by  bureaucracies.  ]^o  people  has  ever  been 
asked  for  its  assent.  Even  the  French  did  not  adopt  it 
(so  far  as  they  have  adopted  it)  until  they  w^ere  com- 
pelled. 

If  we  have  not  followed  the  example,  it  is  because 
the  will  of  the  people  here  (as  also  in  the  Colonies  and  in 
America)  is  more  respected  and  cannot  be  so  easily  over- 
ruled by  statesmen  and  officials. 

As  to  the  evidence  of  our  Consuls,  &c.,  I  should  like 
to  know  the  amount  of  that  evidence  through  other 
sources  than  the  Decimal  Association.  But  it  has  been 
repeatedly  pointed  out,  and  was  acknowledged  by  Mr. 
Eitchie,  that  manufacturers  and  merchants  may  easily 
carry  on  their  foreign  business  in  the  metric  system  if  it 
is  requisite.  If  they  lose  business  because  they  and 
their  clerks  cannot,  with  the  aid  of  a  double  column  of 
figures,  state  their  quantities  in  either  denomination, 
then,  as  I  have  said,  they  ought  to  lose  business. 

To  the  question  wdiether  other  nations  have  ex- 
pressed the  wish  to  return  to  their  old  systems,  the  reply 


THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN.  235 

is  that  tliey  are  practically  without  voices.  Among  na- 
tions less  disciplined  in  freedom  than  ourselves  there  is 
scarcely  a  thought  of  resisting  V administration. 

Remembrances  of  my  boyhood  lead  me  to  deny  the 
alleged  "  enormous  time  and  worry  ''  involved  by  our 
present  system  to  teachers  and  children,  and  also  lead  me 
to  pity  the  children  who  now,  by  order  of  the  educational 
authorities,  are  subjected  to  the  "  enormous  worry  "  of 
learning  both  systems. 

Turning  to  the  letter  of  "  Engineer,"  I  have  first  to 
remark  that  he  misunderstands  me  in  a  way  I  could 
scarcely  have  believed.  I  said  that,  while  the  decimal 
notation  "  remains  in  use  for  calculation,  they  [man- 
kind] have  everywhere  fallen  into  other  modes  for  the 
purposes  of  production  and  exchange."  He  appears  to 
think  that  I  referred  to  the  present  state  of  things,  under 
which  many  peoples  have  been  coerced  into  using  a  deci- 
mal system  of  weights  and  measures;  but,  obviously,  I 
referred  to  the  habits  fallen  into  by  civilized  peoples 
since  the  dawn  of  civilization  long  before  the  metric  sys- 
tem was  heard  of — habits  proving  that  everywhere  they 
had,  for  weights,  measures,  and  values,  abandoned  the 
10-system  of  notation,  and  adopted  systems  character- 
ized by  easier  divisibility.  If  decimal  divisions  were 
already  in  use,  where  was  the  place  for  the  metric 
system? 

The  metric  system  recognizes  only  units,  tenths,  hun- 
dredths, thousandths;  all  other  divisions  are  foreign  to 
its  principle.  Quarters,  and  very  often  eighths  and  six- 
teenths, are  found  to  be  imperative.  If  the  metric  sys- 
tem makes  a  quarter  by  taking  two-tenths  and  five-hun- 
dredths,  and  an  eighth  by  taking  one-tenth,  two-hun- 
dredths,  and  five-thousandths,  "  Engineer  "  may  think 


236  THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN. 

it  satisfactory  for  purposes  of  daily  excliange,  but 
others  do  not;  still  less  do  others  think  it  satisfactory 
that  the  metric  system  gives  no  exact  third  in  any 
way. 

^^  Engineer  "  appears  to  think  it  of  no  consequence 
that,  in  the  American  focus  of  business,  the  decimal  divi- 
sions of  money  are  ignored,  and  quarters,  eighths,  six- 
teenths, &c.,  used,  and  that  there  should  thus  be  necessi- 
tated a  mixed  system,  though  a  main  purpose  of  the 
metric  system  is  to  establish  uniformity. 

"  Engineer ''  says  he  is  "  required  to  work  in  steel 
to  the  thousandth  of  an  inch."  Inadvertently,  he  thus 
betrays  his  cause.  An  inch  is  not  a  denomination 
known  to  the  metric  system.  When  Whitworth  intro- 
duced and  established  his  gauges,  he  did  not  choose  as 
his  unit  the  decimetre  or  centimetre,  but  our  familiar 
twelfth  of  a  foot.  Having,  in  view  of  the  accuracy  he 
desired,  to  name  minute  divisions,  he  chose  hundredths 
and  thousandths,  for  the  sufficient  reason  that  no  names 
for  other  minute  divisions  exist.  But  now  see  what  has 
happened.  Ilis  standard  gauges  have  spread  every- 
where, and  in  countries  where  the  metric  system  is  fol- 
lowed there  is  added  another  anomaly  to  those  already 
pointed  out — a  set  of  divisions  outside  the  metric  system, 
and  which  will  continue  outside  of  it. 

But  all  these  discussions  are  beside  the  essential  ques- 
tion— whether  the  change  is  desirable  for  the  carrying 
on  of  retail  transactions,  enormously  exceeding  all  others 
in  number;  and,  whether,  even  could  advantages  be 
shown,  they  would  be  great  enough  to  warrant  the  im- 
mense trouble  and  confusion  entailed. 

My  opinion  is  that,  should  the  attempt  ever  be  made 
to  force  it  on  the  English  people,  not  so  submissive  as  the 


THE  METRIC  SYSTEM  AGAIN.  237 

Continentals,  the  resistance  will  be  so  determined  that 
the  attempt  will  have  to  be  abandoned. 

IV.  I  regret  having  once  more  to  trespass  on  your 
space,  so  liberally  allowed  to  me;  but  your  correspond- 
ent "  Another  Citizen  "  has  so  confused  matters  that  I 
cannot  willingly  remain  silent. 

Controversies  in  general,  and  this  one  in  particular, 
would  sooner  end  if  opponents  would  reply  to  things  said, 
instead  of  replying  to  things  not  said. 

I  did  not  say  that  the  metric  system  "  was  adopted 
by  Governments  ''  ^^  for  no  earthly  reason."  Govern- 
ments when  adopting  it,  and  forcing  all  buyers  and  sell- 
ers to  use  it,  doubtless  thought  they  were  doing  a  good 
thing,  as  have,  very  generally,  the  most  despotic  Gov- 
ernments when  enacting  this  or  that  coercive  law.  My 
assertion  was  that  the  assent  of  the  people  was  in  no  case 
asked,  and  this  I  still  assert:  holding  that  the  case  of 
the  French  people  themselves,  who  did  not  use  the 
metric  system  till  they  were  compelled,  sufficiently 
shows  this.  Will  "  Another  Citizen  "  name  any  coun- 
try where  the  metric  system  has  been  put  to  the  popular 
vote? 

Eespecting  the  reports  of  Consuls,  dwelt  on  by  the 
Decimal  Association,  will  he  say  how  many  reports  of 
Consuls  make  the  alleged  complaint  as  compared  with 
those  which  make  no  such  complaint?  Surely  he  is 
aware  that  those  who  get  up  cases  praying  for  legisla- 
tion select  evidence  supporting  their  contention,  and  say 
little  or  nothing  about  the  rest.  "Wliat  do  the  disputes 
of  political  parties  show  us  every  day? 

He  says  I  propose  that  "  our  traders  with  foreign 
parts  should  keep  a  duplicate  set  of  books '' — a  mon- 


238  THE   METRIC  SYSTEM   AGAIN. 

stroiis  misstatementj  which  he  could  not  have  made  had 
he  read,  with  any  attention,  the  letter  to  which  he  re- 
plies. Or,  is  it  that,  having  read  it,  he  could  not  under- 
stand it?  Surely  it  is  simple  enough.  Surely  he  can 
see  that  if  you  write  a  column  of  figures,  1,  2,  3,  &c., 
standing  for  francs,  and  then  another  column,  in  which, 
opposite  each  number  of  francs,  is  stated  the  equivalent 
in  shillings  and  pence,  such  a  double  column  will  enable 
a  clerk  to  say  on  the  instant  what  number  of  shillings 
and  pence  is  equivalent  to  58  francs,  or  74  francs,  or  any 
other  number  of  francs.  And  surely  he  can  see  that, 
in  the  same  manner,  a  double  column  of  English  yards 
on  the  one  side  and  the  equivalent  metric  lengths  on  the 
other,  and  so  on  with  weights  and  liquid  measures,  w^ould 
enable  the  clerk  on  the  instant  to  turn  any  quantity  in 
the  one  denomination  riito  its  equivalent  in  the  other, 
and  so  enable  him,  without  any  trouble,  to  write  out  his 
invoices,  or  his  labels,  or  his  orders  in  either  denomina- 
tion. Moreover,  ''Another  Citizen  "  forgets  that  this 
conflict  of  weights  and  measures,  which  is  said  to  impede 
our  merchants  and  manufacturers  in  their  foreign  trade, 
does  not  impede  the  German  merchants  and  manufactur- 
ers who  invade  our  home  markets.  They  adjust  their 
quantities  and  prices  to  English  requirements;  nay,  they 
even  make  for  us,  at  a  cheaper  rate  than  we  do,  our  own 
measuring  instruments,  foot-rules,  thermometers,  bal- 
ances of  various  kinds.  If  English  merchants  and 
manufacturers  will  not  similarly  adapt  their  doings  to 
the  requirements,  then  I  hope  the  Germans  will  take 
their  places. 

Respecting  economy  of  schooling,  if  I  am  told  that 
the  metric  system  would  save  two  years  of  a  boy's 
time,  then  I  shall  continue  to  regard  that  as  grossly 


PUBLISHING  ON  COMMISSION.  239 

untrue,    however    many    schoolmasters    and    inspectors 
affirm  it. 

But  all  these  questions  are  beside  the  essential  ques- 
tion, which  is,  whether,  to  convenience  some  thousands 
of  wholesale  traders,  the  many  millions  of  English  people 
shall  be  forced  to  change  their  daily  habits. 


PUBLISHmG   O^   COMMISSION 

A  controversy  carried  on  in  Literature  at  the  begin- 
ning of  1899  respecting  the  relations  between  authors 
and  publishers  drew  from  me  the  following  letter, 
which  appeared  on  February  4,  giving  my  own  experi- 
ences. I  reproduce  it  here  partly  for  the  instruction  of 
fellow-authors  and  partly  because  it  is  as  w^ell  that  the 
public  at  large  shall  have  information  on  such  matters. 

Unable  or  unwilling  to  follow  "  A  Publisher " 
through  business  details,  some  of  your  readers  may  be 
glad  to  have  a  test  by  which  to  judge  his  statements.  I 
can  furnish  them  with  a  simple  one.  He  quotes  from 
Sir  AYalter  Besant's  book  the  following  passage  describ- 
ing the  "  method  of  the  future  " : — 

"  He  [the  author]  w^ill  appoint  an  agent  or  distribu- 
tor, to  whom  he  wdll  pay  a  commission.  He  will  take 
upon  himself  the  printing  and  production  and  advertis- 
ing. He  will  himself  incur  the  risk,  if  any,  of  a  loss  on 
the  first  run  of  the  book.'' 

"  A  Publisher  "  thereupon  proceeds  to  ridicule  the 
proposal,  and,  drawing  sensational  pictures  of  the  pooi; 
author  and  the  rich  author,  makes  it,  as  he  supposes, 


24:0  rUBLISHING  ON  COMMISSION. 

manifest  that  it  ^vill  not  do  for  either.  The  reply  is 
simple.  The  method  is  that  which  I  have  pursued  for 
the  last  fifty  years,  and  with  the  most  satisfactory  results. 
This  may  be  judged  from  evidence  I  gave  before  the 
Copyright  Commission  which  sat  in  1877.  Here  is  the 
relevant  passage : — 

Then  the  Commission  understand  that  your  books 
are  now  remunerative? — They  are  now  remunerative, 
and  for  this  reason:  As  I  have  explained,  I  had  to  pub- 
lish on  commission.  Commission  is  a  system  which, 
throwing  all  the  cost  upon  the  author,  is  very  disastrous 
for  him  if  his  books  do  not  pay,  and,  as  you  see  in  this 
case,  has  been  very  disastrous  to  me ;  but,  when  they  do 
pay,  it  is  extremely  advantageous,  inasmuch  as  in  that 
case  the  publisher  who  does  the  business  takes  only  10 
per  cent.,  and  the  whole  of  the  difference  between  cost 
and  proceeds,  minus  that  10  per  cent,  [and  the  trade- 
allowances],  comes  to  the  author.  I  have  calculated 
what  are  my  actual  returns,  on  two  suppositions.  I 
have  ascertained  the  percentage  I  get  upon  1,000  copies, 
supposing  that  I  set  up  the  type  solely  for  that  1,000 
copies — supposing,  that  is,  that  the  cost  of  composition 
comes  into  the  cost.  In  that  case  I  reap  30f  per  cent, 
[on  the  advertised  price].  But  I  reap  much  more.  I 
was  sanguine  enough,  when  I  began  this  series  of  books, 
to  stereotype.  The  result  is  that  now  I  simply  have  to 
print  additional  thousands  as  they  are  demanded.  If  I 
suppose  the  cost  of  composition  and  stereotyping  to  have 
been  paid  for  the  first  edition,  and  only  estimate  the 
cost  of  paper  and  printing  in  the  successive  editions, 
then  I  am  reaping  41f  per  cent.  The  actual  percent- 
age, of  course,  is  one  which  lies  between  those  two;  but, 
year  by  year,  with  each  additional  thousand,  I  approach 
more  nearly  to  the  limit  of  41f  per  cent.  I  should 
point  out  tliat  the  result  of  this  is  that  I  receive,  as  may 
be  supposed,  a  considerable  return  upon  the  moderate 
numbers  sold. 


PUBLISHING  ON  COMMISSION.  241 

My  publishers,  Messrs.  Williams  and  Norgate,  an- 
swer completely  to  Sir  Walter  Besant's  description  of 
distributing  agents.  I  do  my  own  business  with  print- 
ers and  paper-makers  and  binders.  The  printers  keep 
my  stock  and  are  accountable  to  me  for  every  copy. 
When  more  copies  of  any  work  are  wanted  for  sale,  the 
publishers  intimate  the  fact  to  me,  and  I  send  a  requisi- 
tion to  the  printers  to  furnish  a  hundred  more  copies  to 
the  binder,  who  hands  them  to  the  publishers.  The 
advertising,  too,  is  directed  by  me;  alike  in  respect  of 
the  numbers  of  advertisements,  the  times  at  which  they 
shall  be  issued,  and  the  periodicals  to  which  they  shall 
go.  So  that  my  publishers  are  simply  agents  for  dis- 
tribution, receiving  a  commission  for  their  work.  As 
to  the  trouble  entailed  on  me,  I  have  not  found  it 
worth  mentioning  wdien  compared  wath  the  benefits 
gained. 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  the  entirely  impecunious 
author  cannot  avail  himself  of  this  system.  It  is  doubt- 
less true,  also,  that  the  unknown  author  or  the  author  of 
an  unattractive  book,  whose  resources  enable  him  to 
adopt  the  system,  is  liable  to  suffer  loss.  The  losses  I 
suffered  myself  were  great  and  continued  for  many 
years.  But  in  such  cases  the  choice  is  not  between  pub- 
lication on  commission  and  some  other  mode  of  publica- 
tion. The  choice  is  between  publication  on  commission 
and  no  publication.  In  early  days  no  book  of  mine  was 
accepted  by  any  publisher.  He  would  risk  neither  pur- 
chase, nor  half -profits,  nor  royalty:  judging,  rightly 
enough,  that  he  would  be  a  loser  under  any  arrangement. 
It  is  not,  therefore,  that  the  commission  system  is  in  such 
cases  disastrous,  but  that  publication  in  any  way  is  dis- 
astrous.    But  for  an  author  who  has  made  a  position  and 


242  A  STATE-BURDEN  ON  AUTHORS. 

can  count  on  a  public,  the  system  is,  as  the  above  facts 
show,  far  better  than  any  other. 

"  A  Publisher  ''  says  that  ''  publishers  care  not  a  rap 
for  undertaking  books  on  commission."  The  confession 
is  significant.  They  "  care  not  a  rap  ''  for  moderate  and 
fixed  profits.  There  are  exceptions,  however.  The  late 
Mr.  Williams  carried  out  loyally  for  many  years  the 
arrangement  I  have  described,  without  demur  or  any 
sign  of  dissatisfaction.  He  was  content  with  his  10  per- 
cent, commission  and  such  small  extra  profits  as  trade 
customs  give.  The  arrangement  continues  w^ith  no  sign 
of  dissatisfaction  from  his  son,  who  is,  I  believe,  far  from 
wishing  to  end  it. 


A    STATE-BUEDEN    O^   AUTHOES. 

As  the  first  of  them  shows,  these  letters,  published  in 
The  Times  for  Feburary  9 — 16,  1898,  respectively, 
were  drawn  forth  by  the  erroneous  representation  of 
a  publisher  that  the  cost  of  books  required  by  law  to  be 
presented  to  five  public  and  ^wasi-public  libraries  is 
borne  by  the  publisher:  an  allegation  which  is  true  in 
but  a  small  proportion  of  cases. 

The  protest  of  Mr.  Marston  is  timely,  and  w^ould  be 
altogether  worthy  of  endorsement  did  it  rightly  repre- 
sent the  incidence  of  the  burden  he  complains  of.  But 
(excluding  non-copyright  books)  the  burden  is  not  borne 
mainly  by  the  publishers;  it  is  borne  in  chief  measure, 
and  often  wholly,  by  the  authors. 

It  is  borne  indirectly  by  the  authors  in  all  those  cases 
where  there  is  sold  the  copyright  of  an  edition,  or  where 


A  STATE-BURDEN  ON  AUTHORS.  243 

there  is  an  agreement  to  pay  half-profits  or  a  royalty; 
for  in  all  such  cases  the  publisher,  in  estimating  the  ex- 
penses of  publication,  sets  down  the  gratis  copies  to  be 
distributed,  including  among  these  the  copies  for  the 
public  libraries.  This  is  one  of  the  items  which  to- 
gether form  a  total  on  the  basis  of  which  the  amount 
offered  to  the  author,  under  either  form  of  publication, 
is  calculated.  And  hence,  whatever  burden  the  cost 
of  the  five  copies  may  be  to  the  publisher,  that  burden 
is  practically  transferred  to  the  author  when  settling  the 
terms. 

But  the  burden  falls  directly  upon  the  author  in  all 
cases  of  publication  by  commission.  In  the  publisher's 
accounts  the  author  is  debited  with  the  ^Ye  copies,  as  he 
is  with  all  gratis  copies  distributed  on  his  behalf.  The 
tax  is  levied  by  the  nation  on  him  whether  he  makes 
anything  by  his  book  or  not,  and  no  less  when  it  entails 
on  him  a  loss.  During  the  first  12  years  of  my  literary 
life  every  one  of  my  books  failed  to  pay  for  its  paper, 
print,  and  advertisements,  and  for  many  years  after 
failed  to  pay  my  small  living  expenses — every  one  of 
them  made  me  the  poorer.  Nevertheless,  the  40  mil- 
lions of  people  constituting  the  nation  demanded  of  the 
impoverished  brain-worker  five  gratis  copies  of  each. 
There  is  only  one  simile  occurring  to  me  which  at  all 
represents  the  fact,  and  that  in  but  a  feeble  way — Dives 
asking  alms  of  Lazarus! 

The  second  letter  ran  as  follows: — 

AVill  you  allow  me  space  for  a  few  remarks  on  Mr. 
L 's  letter? 


Mr.  L rightly  says  of  the  required  gifts  to  li- 
braries that  ^'  the  cost  of  the  few  additional  copies  is  in 


2U  A  STATE-BURDEN  ON  AUTHORS. 

most  cases  trivial.''     To  Mr.  L it  has  always  been 

so,  and  it  is  so  to  me  at  present;  but  it  is  not  so  to  tlie 
struggling  author,  with  whom  for  long  years  it  is  a  ques- 
tion whether  he  will  sink  or  swim.  Moreover,  his  first 
loss  is  the  parent  of  a  second  and  larger  loss.  The  few 
copies  which  the  State  takes  from  him  are  used  by 
it  to  intercept  the  buyers  of  many  copies.  After  the 
year  of  grace  during  which  his  book  is  withheld, 
numbers  who  would  otherwise  purchase  it  read  it  at 
the  Museum  library,  and,  already  a  loser,  he  loses 
much  more. 

While  agreeing  with  Mr.  L that  facilities  for 

literary  research  are  very  desirable,  I  do  not  agree  that 
they  can  be  achieved  only  through  public  institutions. 
Fifty  odd  years  ago  some  men  of  letters  and  others  (Mr. 
Carlyle  being  a  chief  mover)  set  up  the  London  Library 
for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  research,  the  British  Mu- 
seum library  failing  in  sundry  respects  to  meet  their 
needs.  From  the  London  Library  books  may  be  taken 
home;  15  may  be  had  out  at  a  time,  and  if  any  book 
a  student  wants  is  of  appreciable  value  it  is  bought  for 
him  and  afterward  put  on  the  shelves.  The  library  has 
now  175,000  volumes  and  grows  at  an  increasing  rate. 
Of  course  it  is  far  from  all-embracing.  But,  had  there 
existed  no  public  libraries;  had  the  felt  need  prompted 
establishment  of  it  a  generation  or  more  earlier;  had  its 
claims  then  become  widely  known,  as  they  would ;  had  it 
received,  as  it  now  does,  gifts  of  books  and  of  private 
libraries,  as  well  as  probably  donations  and  bequests  of 
money,  it  would  by  this  time  have  gone  far  to  fulfil  all 
the  requirements.  It  is  true  that  we  have  not,  like  the 
Americans,  millionaires  who  found  universities  or  build 
magnificent  observatories.     Still  there  are  instances  of 


A  STATE-BURDEN  ON  AUTHORS.  2^5 

the  required  public  spirit;  and  when  we  learn  that  in 
1890  charitable  bequests  reached  over  £1,000,000,  that 
within  the  few  preceding  years  bequests  for  art  galleries 
and  collections  had  reached  over  half-a-million,  and  that 
London  and  Edinburgh  and  other  places  have  recently 
witnessed  kindred  gifts,  it  is  not  an  over-sanguine  calcu- 
lation that,  under  pressure  of  the  need,  an  institution 
like  the  London  Library,  earlier  founded,  w^ould  before 
now  have  grown  to  vast  proportions,  quite  meeting  the 
want,  and  would  have  accumulated  a  fund  (£200,000) 
the  interest  of  which  would  suffice  to  j^urchase  copies  of 
all  new  works. 

But  now  from  this  side  issue  let  me  return  to  the 
main  issue.  Grant  that  to  facilitate  literary  research 
there  must  be  public  libraries.  Does  it  follow  that  these 
must  be  recruited  by  copies  of  all  new  works  taken  from 
their  authors  under  penalty?  Is  it  not  possible  that 
copies  may  be  bought?  Admit  the  want,  and  the  first 
question  arising  is — By  whom  shall  the  cost  of  satisfy- 
ing it  be  borne?  Shall  the  public  who  profit  by  the 
books  bear  it,  or  the  authors  who  have  laboured  to  pro- 
duce the  books?  Shall  the  tax  be  paid  by  the  many 
millions  benefited,  or  by  the  few  hundreds  who  benefit 
them?  As  implied  above,  I  accept  neither  alternative. 
But,  assuming  that  one  must  be  accepted,  then  I  say 
that  in  equity  the  burden  should  be  borne  by  the  State 
with  its  hundred  millions  of  revenue,  and  not  imposed 
on  a  small  class  of  men,  most  of  them  needy  and 
many  of  them  passing  their  lives  "in  shallows  and  in 


24:0  THE  SOUTH-AFRICAN   WAR. 


THE    SOUTII-AFEICAK    WAE. 

Of  the  following  three  letters  the  first,  addressed  to 
Mr.  Leonard  Courtney,  was  read  at  a  large  meeting  held 
at  Manchester  just  before  the  opening  of  the  war,  and 
the  other  two  were  published  in  journals,  daily  and 
weekly.  I  reproduce  them  here  as  permanent  records 
of  my  feeling  respecting  a  war  by  which  Great  Britain 
has  been  discredited  in  every  way — discredited  in  its 
intelligence,  since  a  task  regarded  as  small  and  easy  has 
proved  to  be  a  task  costing  more  in  men  and  money  than 
was  ever  before  expended  in  the  space  of  a  year — dis- 
credited in  its  military  capacity,  since  two-hundred- 
thousand  trained  soldiers  have  been  required  to  conquer 
thirty  to  forty  thousand  untrained  burghers — discred- 
ited in  its  honour,  since,  after  disclaiming  the  desire  for 
goldfields  and  territory  it  has  taken  both — and  further 
morally  discredited,  since  its  character  for  love  of  lib- 
erty and  desire  to  maintain  the  freedom  of  small  nation- 
alities has  been  for  ever  lost. 

The  letter  to  Mr.  Courtney  ran  as  follows: — 

I  rejoice  that  you  and  others  are  bent  on  showing 
that  there  are  some  among  us  who  think  the  national 
honour  is  not  being  enhanced  by  putting  down  the  weak. 
Would  that  age  and  ill-health  did  not  prevent  me  from 
aiding.  'No  one  can  deny  that  at  the  time  of  the  Jame- 
son Raid  the  aim  of  the  Uitlanders  and  the  raiders  was 


THE  SOUTH-AFRICAN  WAR.  247 

to  usurp  the  Transvaal  Government.  lie  must  be  wil- 
fully blind  who  does  not  see  that  wbat  the  Uitlanders 
failed  to  do  by  bullets  they  hope  presently  to  do  by 
votes,  and  only  those  who,  while  jealous  of  their  own 
independence,  regard  but  little  the  independence  of  peo- 
ple who  stand  in  their  way  can  fail  to  sympathize  with 
the  Boers  in  their  resistance  to  political  extinction.  It 
is  sad  to  see  our  Government  backing  those  whose 
avowed  policy  is  expansion,  wdiich,  less  politely  ex- 
pressed, means  aggression,  for  which  there  is  a  still  less 
polite  word,  readily  guessed.  On  behalf  of  these  the 
big  British  Empire,  weapon  in  hand,  growls  out  to  the 
little  Boer  Eepublic,  Do  as  I  bid  you.  I  have  always 
thought  that  nobleness  is  sho^vn  in  treating  tenderly 
those  who  are  relatively  feeble,  and  even  sacrificing  on 
their  behalf  something  to  which  there  is  a  just  claim, 
but,  if  current  opinion  is  right,  I  must  have  been 
wrong. 

The  following  is  from  The  Morning  Leader  for  Feb- 
ruary 5,  1900:— 

If  The  Morning  Leader  will  give  a  voice  to  those 
who  would  check  the  anti-social  spirit  now  dominant  it 
will  do  good  service. 

The  crowds  who  shouted  to  the  departing  troops 
"Remember  Majuba!  "  displayed  the  same  passion  as 
the  lowest  savages  who  make  blood-revenge  a  primary 
duty.  And  the  pride  of  mastery  wdiich  prompts  the 
Indian  to  wear  as  a  trophy  the  scalp  of  his  fallen  foe,  is 
the  same  in  nature  as  that  which  will  hear  of  nothing 
less  than  taking  the  chief  city  of  a  conquered  nation. 
Is  the  sentiment  of  the  prize  ring — "  I  am  stronger  than 
you  are  '' — so  very  noble? 


248  AN  iNHtJMANITY. 

A  letter  to  The  Speaker  for  January  13,  1900,  ran 
as  follows: — 

Now  tliat  those  who  think  that  mastery  at  any  price 
is  the  noblest  ambition  have  succeeded  in  silencing  nearly 
all  organs  of  dissentient  opinion,  I  rejoice  to  see  that 
there  is  at  least  one  such  organ  still  faithful  to  the  tra- 
ditions which,  in  happier  days,  distinguished  in  some 
measure  the  conduct  of  England.  The  Speaker  is  an 
Abdiel  remaining  loyal  to  high  principles,  upholding 
"  through  hostile  scorn  "  a  just  and  humane  policy. 

I  fear  there  is  little  to  be  done  by  appealing  to  those 
whose  thoughts  are  exclusively  of  ^^  British  suprema- 
cy,''  ^'  British  interests,"  "■  British  prestige^^  "  British 
pluck.''  Still  it  is  well  that  everything  should  be  done 
which  can  be  done,  and  I  applaud  the  energy  and  resolu- 
tion with  which  The  Speaker  is  seeking  if  not  to  change 
yet  to  moderate  the  passions  now  dominant. 


a:^  ixhltma:n^ity. 

The  following  appeared  in  The  Times  for  July  25, 
1900,  under  the  title  "  Lobsters." 

How  is  it  that  the  Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Cru- 
elty to  Animals  and  the  Anti- Vivisection  Society  do  not 
join  their  forces  for  the  purpose  of  putting  down  by 
some  means  the  horribly  cruel  practice  of  boiling  lob- 
sters alive?  The  fishmongers  throughout  England  every 
day  inflict  far  more  torture  than  is  inflicted  by  all  the 
experiments  of  physiologists  in  the  course  of  a  year. 

There  is  no  such  excuse  for  it  as  that  made  for  the 
infliction  of  pains  by  sportsmen.  It  is  not  an  accompani- 
ment of  certain  pleasures,  and  it  is  not  incident  to  the 


AN  INHUMANITY.  249 

obtainment  of  food.  It  is  an  absolutely  superfluous 
cruelty. 

Sympathizing  as  I  do  with  some  who  carry  their  pro- 
tests so  far  as  to  refuse  to  eat  lobsters,  I  was  led  some 
time  since  to  consider  how  the  evil  might  be  dealt  with. 
Certain  experiences  of  my  salmon-fishing  days  recurred 
to  me.  I  remembered  that  after  a  salmon  had  been 
landed  a  blow  on  the  back  of  its  head  from  a  heavy  stick 
or  a  good-sized  stone,  held  in  the  hand,  sufficed  to  cause 
death:  the  shock  given  to  the  brain  arresting  its  func- 
tion. "Would  not  the  same  thing  happen  if  the  chief 
ganglion  of  a  lobster  were  subject  to  a  like  shock?  Ex- 
periment verified  the  inference  that  it  would.  Since 
then  my  cook  always  kills  a  lobster  by  striking  it  on  the 
carapace  just  behind  the  eyes,  where  the  chief  nervous 
centre  is  seated;  ordinarily  using  a  rolling-pin,  which  is 
a  sufficiently  heavy  implement  always  at  hand.  A  thud 
given  by  this  is  instantly  fatal. 

Legislative  coercion  is  not  needful  to  enforce  adop- 
tion of  this  method.  The  blow  required  produces  a 
more  or  less  marked  fracture  of  the  carapace,  and  if  all 
who  are  humane  enough  to  trouble  themselves  about  the 
matter  refuse  to  buy  lobsters  which  do  not  bear  this 
mark,  they  may,  after  a  time,  put  an  end  to  the  bar- 
barity. It  is  true  that  the  fishmongers  may  persist  in 
their  usual  practice,  and  make  this  fracture  after  the 
boiling,  alleging  either  that  their  customers  do  not  like 
a  damaged  shell  or  that  the  water  which  oozes  through 
the  cracks  injures  the  flesh — a  perfectly  baseless  state- 
ment, as  I  can  testify.  Should  there  arise  any  such 
obstacle  it  may  be  met,  either  by  having  the  lobster 
killed  in  presence  of  the  buyer,  or  by  having  it  sent  home 
alive  and  leaving  the  cook  to  kill  it. 


APPENDICES. 


A   SOLUTION   OF   THE   WATER   QUESTION. 

To  neatly  all  my  readers  I  am  known  simply  as  a  writer  of 
boots :  only  a  few  knowing  that  the  early  part  of  my  life  was 
passed  as  a  civil  engineer.  Hence  to  the  great  majority  the 
inclusion,  among  the  foregoing  fragments,  of  one  dealing  with 
an  engineering  question  would  have  seemed  very  anomalous ; 
and  for  this  reason  I  have  thought  it  best  to  include  it  in  an 
appendix,  containing  fragments  not  likely  to  appeal  to  those 
who  may  feel  some  interest  in  the  rest.  It  was  written  in 
1851,  when  but  five  years  had  elapsed  since  engineering 
matters  mainly  occupied  my  thoughts,  and  when  they  still 
continued  occasionally  to  do  this.  Its  date  was  December  20, 
1851,  and  it  was  published  in  the  Economist  newspaper  when 
I  was  engaged  on  that  journal.  Some  of  the  difficulties  stand- 
ing in  the  way  of  the  scheme  at  that  time  have  since  disap- 
peared. 

Of  the  many  possible  modes  of  supplying  London  with 
water,  there  is  one  which  has  not  yet  been  proposed.  It  is 
extremely  simple  and  economical ;  and,  I  think,  offers  the 
readiest  escape  from  the  perplexities  with  which  the  matter 
is  at  present  surrounded. 

A  scheme  is  already  before  the  public  for  providing  the 
metropolis  with  water  from  Henley-on-Thames.  This  water, 
in  which  a  white  pebble  is  visible  at  the  depth  of  five  or  six 
feet,  will,  I  presume,  be  held  unobjectionable  in  quality,  and 
that  it  is  abundant  in  quantity  needs  no  proof.  Could  it  then 
be  brought  to  London  without  the  vast  expense  of  the  pro- 

253 


25^        A  SOLUTION   OF  THE  WATER  QUESTION. 

posed  aqueducts,  and  could  it  be  distributed  without  a  new 
system  of  pipes,  every  important  desideratum  would  be  ful- 
filled. Let  us  consider  whether  this  is  not  possible.  Let  us 
inquire  what  causes  prevent  the  Thames  at  London  from  being 
as  pure  as  the  Thames  at  Henley,  and  whether  these  causes 
are  not  removable. 

The  Thames  is  vitiated — firstly,  by  the  sewage  of  the 
numerous  small  towns  on  its  banks  lying  between  Henley  and 
London ;  secondly,  by  the  sewage  of  London  itself ;  and 
thirdly,  by  the  stirring  up  of  the  mud  consequent  upon  the 
flux  and  reflux  of  the  tide. 

To  intercept  the  sewage  of  these  intermediate  towns  would 
be  a  matter  of  no  difficulty.  Having  before  us  the  example  of 
Edinburgh,  and  knowing  what  the  Metropolitan  Sewage-Ma- 
nure Company  are  daily  doing,  it  is  obvious,  that  did  there 
exist  a  sufficient  motive,  it  would  be  easy  to  use  up  the  sewer- 
water  of  each  of  these  places  in  irrigating  the  surrounding- 
districts. 

As  for  the  sewage  of  the  metropolis,  it  may  practically  be 
left  out  of  the  question,  seeing  that,  on  carrying  into  execu- 
tion the  adopted  drainage  scheme,  this  sewage  will  be  de- 
livered so  far  down  the  Thames  as  not  to  contaminate  the 
w^ater  of  London. 

The  third  cause  of  impurity — the  flux  and  reflux  of  the  tide 
— is  the  only  one  that  remains;  and  we  now  come  to  the 
question — May  not  this  be  stopped  ?  I  think  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  it  may.  By  throwing  across  the  Thames  near  Lon- 
don (say  at  Chelsea)  a  weir,  similar  to,  but  much  larger  than, 
those  which  repeatedly  occur,  higher  up  the  river,  and  by  ac- 
companying this  weir  with  one,  two,  or  more  locks  to  admit 
of  the  passage  of  the  small  steamboats  and  barges  that  ply 
above  Chelsea,  the  desideratum  might  be  achieved  without 
great  cost,  and  without  entailing  any  appreciable  inconveni- 
ence. It  is  true  that  damming  up  a  tidal  water-way  is  by  no 
means  so  easy  a  matter  as  damming  up  an  ordinary  river- 
channel.  But,  whilst  quite  conscious  of  the  difficulties  to  be 
met,  I  do  not  think  it  rash  to  assume  that  modern  engineering 


A  SOLUTION  OF  THE  WATER  QUESTION.        255 

skill  would  be  competent  to  meet  them  ;  especially  since  hear- 
ing from  a  gentleman  now  engaged  in  building  bridges  over 
two  tidal  rivers,  that  such  a  dam  is  practicable. 

Taking  for  granted,  however,  its  practicability,  let  us  con- 
sider what  the  results  would  be.  The  sewage  of  Reading, 
Maidenhead,  Windsor,  &c.,  having  been  blocked  out;  the 
sewage  of  London  having  been  provided  with  a  discharge 
some  ten  miles  below  the  dam ;  and  the  dam  having  been 
closed,  it  is  manifest  that  the  whole  of  the  Thames  above  the 
dam  would  presently  become  clear.  That  mass  of  muddy  fluid 
which  now  daily  flows  backwards  and  forwards  as  high  as 
Kew  would  gradually  escape  over  the  weir,  and  its  place 
would  be  taken  by  the  water  from  the  upper  Thames  ;  and,  as 
this  would  have  received  no  contamination  in  its  progress,  it 
would,  for  anything  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  be  as  pure  at 
Chelsea  as  at  Henley.  Possibly  it  will  be  objected  that  the  de- 
posits of  mud  which  constitute  the  bed  of  the  Thames  above 
London  would  still  destroy  the  clearness  of  the  water.  This, 
however,  is  an  error.  The  Thames  at  Henley  and  above  runs 
over  a  bottom  as  muddy  as  that  which  it  runs  over  here ;  yet 
is  not  dirtied  by  it,  simply  because  from  the  constant  recur- 
rence of  dams  the  stream  is  slow ;  and  as  under  the  proposed 
arrangement  the  water-way  at  Chelsea  would,  in  proportion 
to  the  water  passing  through  it,  be  far  greater  than  at  Henley, 
the  current  would  be  still  slower  than  there,  and  the  disturb- 
ance of  the  bottom  even  less.  Should  it  be  urged  that  the  mud 
would  be  stirred  up  by  the  passage  of  river-craft  and  especially 
steamboats,  it  is  replied  that  with  a  constant  depth  of  some 
twenty  feet  of  water,  vessels  of  such  small  draught  as  those 
plying  above  Chelsea  would  produce  no  such  effect. 

Turning  now  to  the  advantages  offered  by  this  project,  it  is 
obvious  that  all  the  \Yater  Companies  now  drawing  their  sup- 
plies from  the  Thames — companies  against  whom  the  loudest 
and  most  justifiable  complaints  are  made — would,  under  the 
proposed  arrangement,  be  presented  with  an  abundant  source 
of  pure  water.  The  works  and  pipes  of  some  of  them  would 
serve  as  heretofore  without  alteration ;  and,  by  an  underground 


256        A  SOLUTION   OF  THE  WATER  QUESTION. 

cast-iron  conduit,  each  of  the  other  works  might  readily  be 
connected  with  the  water  above  the  dam  at  but  moderate  ex- 
pense. And  should  the  quantity  they  can  jointly  supply  be 
ultimately  found  insufficient,  their  distributing  organisations 
could  be  enlarged  or  additional  ones  formed  with  far  less  out- 
lay than  would  be  needed  to  bring  and  distribute  water  from 
one  of  the  proposed  new  sources. 

As  above  implied,  changes  made  since  1851  have  rendered 
the  project  much  more  practicable  than  it  then  seemed :  sewage 
has  been  stopped  out.  An  incidental  benefit  not  named  may 
be  here  added.  Were  the  tidal  stream  arrested  at  Chelsea — 
were  there  none  of  that  rush  now  entailed  by  the  filling  and 
emptying  of  the  river  channel  from  Chelsea  to  Richmond  and 
above,  the  movement  of  the  water  through  London,  and  espe- 
cially above  London  Bridge,  would  become  relatively  slow.  To 
fill  the  space  between  London  Bridge  and  Chelsea  in  the 
course  of  six  hours,  would  require  a  current  so  gentle  that  it 
would  not  stir  up  the  mud.  And  this  space,  becoming  after  a 
few  months  filled  exclusively  by  the  clear  water  of  the  upper 
Thames  discharged  over  the  Chelsea  weir,  would  be  rendered 
practically  pure.  This  advantage  would  be  still  more  effect- 
ually achieved,  however,  were  there  carried  out  the  more  am- 
bitious scheme  which  the  letter  went  on  to  propose,  and 
which  was  as  follows  : — 

There  is  an  extension  of  this  scheme  which  seems  to  me 
well  worth  discussing.  It  w^ould  achieve  several  important 
desiderata,  and  though  open  to  what  seems  at  first  sight  a  seri- 
ous arid  even  fatal  objection,  will,  I  think,  on  calm  considera- 
tion, be  found  feasible.  The  plan  I  refer  to  is — damming  up 
the  river  below  London  instead  of  above.  By  throwing  across^ 
the  Thames,  say  at  Greenwich,  a  weir  such  as  that  mentioned 
above,  and  by  accompanying  this  weir  with  a  group  of  locks, 


A  SOLUTION  OF  THE  WATER  QUESTION.        257 

placed  side  by  side,  sufficiently  numerous  to  admit  of  the  simul- 
taneous passage  of  many  vessels,  several  additional  advantages 
would  be  secured  without  great  cost  and  without  entailing  any- 
serious  interruption  of  traffic. 

1.  The  whole  of  the  Thames  between  London  Bridge  and 
Greenwich  would  be  turned  into  a  vast  dock,  always  full  up 
to  the  level  of  spring  tides.  Vessels  entering  at  all  times 
might  immediately  be  laid  alongside  the  wharfs  or  taken  into 
the  existing  docks  without  having  to  wait,  as  they  frequently 
now  do,  for  more  water.  Affording  constantly  throughout  its 
whole  width  a  sufficient  depth  for  ships  of  ordinary  draught, 
the  river  channel  would  practically  be  rendered  broader,  and 
its  centre,  being  less  occupied,  would  be  more  available  for  the 
general  traffic  than  at  present. 

2.  The  shelving  banks  of  mud,  which  are  now,  during  the 
greater  part  of  every  day,  left  more  or  less  bare,  and  which, 
from  exposure  to  the  sun  and  air,  are  constantly  sending  up 
noxious  exhalations  along  the  whole  course  of  the  river  both 
above  and  below  bridge,  would  be  permanently  covered ;  the 
decomposition  now  going  on  would  be  stopped,  or  nearly  so ; 
and  an  increase  of  salubrity  would  result. 

3.  A  great  improvement  to  the  appearance  of  the  metropo- 
lis would  be  a  further  consequence.  In  place  of  the  disgust- 
ing current  now  ever  running  backwards  and  forwards  through 
a  dirty  half-empty  channel,  which,  instead  of  being  an  orna- 
ment to  London,  is  an  eyesore,  we  should  have  a  clear,  pure 
lake  always  full. 

4.  The  Thames  bridges  would  no  longer  be  endangered. 
Already  the  foundations  of  two  of  them  have  been  under- 
mined by  the  rapid  current,  and  I  have  heard  the  opinion  ex- 
pressed by  an  engineer  that  Waterloo  Bridge  will  ultimately 
share  the  fate  of  the  Blackfriars  and  Westminster  Bridges 
should  its  piers  continue  subject  to  the  same  scouring  action 
of  the  tide.  Were  the  proposed  scheme  carried  out,  no  such 
catastrophe  need  be  feared. 

Against  these  advantages  the  only  obvious  set-off  is  the 
hindrance  that  would  occasionally  occur  in  the  entrance  and 


25S        A  SOLUTION  OF   THE  WATER  QUESTION. 

exit  of  shipping.  This  will  be  found,  on  examination,  a  less 
formidable  difficulty  than  it  looks.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  a  great  number  of  the  ships  entering  the  Thames,  and 
those,  too,  ships  of  the  largest  class,  go  into  the  East  and 
West  India  Docks.  Were  the  dam  placed  about  Greenwich  as 
proposed,  these  ships  would  be  uninterfered  with.  On  those 
vessels  passing  up  to  lie  in  the  Pool,  or  to  enter  the  London, 
St.  Katharine's,  or  Commercial  Docks,  and  on  those  passing 
down  from  these  places,  the  going  through  the  locks  would 
entail  a  certain  delay.  By  having  the  locks  numerous,  how- 
ever, (and  the  shore  of  the  Isle  of  Dogs  might  be  trenched 
upon  to  make  room  for  ten  or  a  dozen  if  need  be,)  this  delay 
would  not,  at  ordinary  times,  exceed  the  five  or  ten  minutes 
required  for  transfer  from  one  level  to  the  other.  And  even 
when  many  vessels,  detained  by  adverse  w^inds,  were  coming 
up  the  river  in  a  crowd,  ten  or  a  dozen  locks  would  dispose 
of  those  proceeding  into  the  Pool  with  tolerable  celerity.  It 
should  be  borne  in  mind  too,  that  even  now  vessels  must  be 
delayed  on  reaching  the  Pool ;  for  they  cannot  sail  through  the 
Fool  in  a  fleet,  nor  all  get  into  the  docks  at  once,  nor  be  unloaded 
together.  Evidently,  therefore,  were  they  passed  through  the 
locks  as  rapidly  as  they  could  be  disposed  of  on  reaching  the 
Pool,  no  real  hindrance  would  occur. 

Should  it,  however,  still  be  thought  that  some  loss  of  time 
would  occasionally  be  inevitable ;  and  should  it  even  be  con- 
sidered that  the  facilities  obtained  by  turning  the  Thames  into 
a  dock  would  not  compensate  the  shipping  interest  for  this ;  it 
is  nevertheless  argued,  that  offering  as  it  does  a  still  more  satis- 
factory and  economical  solution  of  the  water-question — promis- 
ing to  greatly  increase  the  salubrity  and  beauty  of  London — 
and  holding  out  a  guarantee  of  safety  for  the  Thames  bridges, 
the  project  presents  advantages  which  far  more  than  counter- 
balance any  possible  mercantile  inconvenience. 

The  Thames  through  London  would  not  only  become  a 
"  clear,  pure  lake  always  full " :  it  would  become  something 
more.     Above  London  Bridge  such  parts  of  its  shores  as  were 


BOARD  OF  TRADE  AND  RAILWAY  STATION  BOARDS.  259 

not  used  for  wharves  might  readily  be  made  the  shores  of  an 
ornamental  water ;  and  its  calm  bright  surface  would  become 
one  on  which  the  pleasures  of  boating  might  be  everywhere 
enjoyed.  Attached  to  the  downward  sides  of  the  piers  of 
various  bridges  would  soon  be  established  floating  baths  like 
those  on  the  Seine  at  Paris,  but  containing  swimming  baths 
as  well  as  hot  baths ;  and  to  other  piers  floating  cafes  and 
restaurants  might  be  attached,  which  would  be  extensively 
patronized  during  the  fine  months  of  the  year.  And  then  in 
winter,  the  surface  being  calm  and  therefore  quickly  frozen, 
would  furnish  an  immense  area  for  skaters:  below  Chelsea 
parts  of  it  not  disturbed  by  steamboats  being  thus  available 
and  above  Chelsea  the  whole  of  it  being  thus  available.  In 
short,  besides  its  resulting  increase  of  salubrity,  the  Thames 
would  be  made  a  centre  of  attraction  instead  of  the  contrary. 


THE  BOARD  OF  TRADE  AND  RAILWAY   STATION 
BOARDS. 

The  following  fragment,  like  the  preceding  one,  is  so  in- 
congruous in  subject-matter  with  those  forming  the  body  of 
the  volume  that  it  has  seemed  best  to  relegate  it  to  an  append- 
ix. The  inclusion  even  here  of  a  letter  dealing  with  a  matter 
so  seemingly  trivial  will  be  thought  by  many  ill-judged.  Per- 
haps they  will  think  otherwise  when  they  remember  that  daily 
throughout  the  kingdom  many  thousands  of  persons  travelling 
on  lines  they  are  strangers  to,  are  often  greatly  inconvenienced 
— hurried,  perturbed,  delayed — by  the  irrational  usages  at 
present  in  force ;  and  that  not  only  their  interests  but  the  in- 
terests of  the  companies  dictate  some  such  change  as  that 


2G0  BOARD  OF  TRADE  AND  RAILWAY  STATION  BOARDS. 

indicated.     The  letter  appeared  in  The  Times  for  December 
2,  1895. 

In  your  issue  of  Thursday  were  named  several  unsatisfac- 
tory ways  of  diminishing  the  confusion  between  station  name- 
boards  and  the  surrounding  advertisements.  This  confusion 
may  be  effectually  removed  in  a  way  at  once  simple  and 
obvious. 

Advertisers  should  be  allowed  to  use  all  colours  save  one, 
and  that  one,  reserved  for  station  name-boards,  should  be  the 
most  conspicuous  colour — red.  Red  is  the  proper  colour,  not 
only  as  being  the  most  conspicuous,  but  as  being  the  colour 
of  lamps  and  flags  used  as  signals  for  stopping ;  and  since  a 
station  is  a  stopping  place  the  board  bearing  its  name  should 
be  red. 

Further,  that  it  may  have  the  greatest  conspicuousness, 
this  board,  instead  of  bearing  red  letters  on  a  white  ground, 
should  bear  white  letters  on  a  red  ground,  the  advantage 
being  that  the  much  greater  area  of  red  presented  would 
catch  the  eye  of  the  traveller  more  readily  and  from  a  greater 
distance. 

If  railway  companies  could  agree  to  adopt  universally  such 
a  mode  of  exhibiting  station  names  an  additional  advantage 
would  be  gained.  As  things  now  are  the  traveller  approaching 
a  station  does  not  know  the  general  aspect  of  the  thing  he 
wants  to  find ;  but  if  he  had  a  foreknowledge  of  its  general 
aspect  as  a  large  mass  of  red  this  foreknowledge  would  enable 
him  to  identify  the  name-board  even  before  he  came  within 
reading  distance. 

Were  such  a  plan  adopted  name-boards  of  special  shapes, 
and  spaces  round  name-boards,  would  be  needless. 

I  am  told  that  on  one  or  two  of  the  metropolitan  lines  the 
suggestion  has  been  carried  out — in  part  if  not  completely. 


AMERICAN  PUBLISHERS.  261 


AMERICAN  PUBLISHERS. 

Though  not  all  of  them  impersonal  in  form,  the  preceding 
fragments  are  impersonal  in  substance.  The  following  repro- 
duced letter,  being  wholly  personal,  I  could  not  fitly  place  with 
the  rest.  Yet  that  my  deceased  friend  should  not  have  a  per- 
manent recognition  of  indebtedness  to  him  from  me  and  from 
many  other  English  authors,  has  seemed  unjust.  To  meet  the 
difficulty  I  have  decided  to  place  the  letter  here.  It  appeared 
in  The  Times  for  September  21,  1895. 

In  the  article  on  "  Literature  in  America,"  which  appears 
in  your  issue  to-day,  accounts  are  given  of  the  chief  publishing 
houses  in  New  York  and  elsewhere.  Allow  me  to  make  a  small 
but  important  addition  to  the  account  given  of  the  house  of 
Messrs.  D.  Appleton  and  Co.     In  it  occurs  the  sentence : — 

"  English  men  of  science  owe  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  the 
firm  who  were  the  first  to  introduce  authorized  editions  of  the 
works  of  Herbert  Spencer,  Tyndall,  Huxley,  and  Darwin  to 
the  American  public,  and  who  also  originated  the  well-known 
international  scientific  series." 

While  recognizing  the  indebtedness  of  English  men  of  sci- 
ence to  the  house  of  Messrs.  Appleton,  justice  requires  me  to 
say  that  the  "  debt  of  gratitude  "  is  in  chief  measure  owed  to 
my  late  friend  Professor  E.  L.  Youmans.  The  soundness  of 
his  judgment  having  been  proved  to  them  by  experience,  the 
Messrs.  Appleton  adopted  to  a  large  extent  the  suggestions 
made  by  him  respecting  English  works  to  be  republished.  It 
was  at  his  instigation  that  they  undertook  the  publication  of 
my  works,  the  works  of  Tyndall,  Huxley,  and  Darwin,  and  the 
works  of  various  other  scientific  men.     He  was  deeply  desirous 


202  AMERICAN  PUBLISHERS. 

of  obtaining  for  English  authors  a  due  share  of  the  profits 
resulting  from  the  sales  of  their  books  in  America,  and  his 
desire  met  with  a  proper  response  from  the  Messrs.  Appleton. 
How  far  the  remunerative  terms  given  to  English  authors 
must  be  ascribed  to  his  negotiations  and  how  far  to  the  equit- 
able feeling  of  Messrs.  Appleton,  it  is  of  course  impossible  to 
say;  but  my  own  correspondence  with  him  enables  me  to 
testify  that  his  unceasing  effort  was  to  maintain  authors'  in- 
terests. For  a  period  of  30  years,  during  which  English  works 
had  no  copyright  in  America,  arrangements  initiated  about 
I860  gave  to  English  authors  who  published  with  the  Messrs. 
Appleton  profits  comparable  to,  if  not  identical  with,  those  of 
American  authors.  To  the  Messrs.  Appleton  great  credit  must 
be  accorded  for  having  loyally  carried  out  these  arrangements 
in  my  own  case  and  in  the  cases  of  various  of  my  friends,  and 
I  believe,  in  all  other  cases ;  but  I  cannot  permit  the  part  taken 
by  Professor  Youmans  in  the  matter  to  be  ignored. 

To  him,  more  than  to  any  other  American,  the  gratitude 
of  English  authors  is  due. 

Let  me  also  correct  the  statement  of  your  correspondent 
respecting  the  International  Scientific  series.  This  was  not 
"  originated  "  by  the  Messrs.  Appleton,  but  by  Professor  You- 
mans. Further,  he  was  the  originator  of  the  Popular  Science 
Monthly,  for  many  years  edited  by  him  and  now  edited  by  his 
younger  brother. 

As  it  might  be  inferred  from  the  wording  of  this  letter  that  the 
payment  of  copyright  to  foreign  authors  began  with  the  works  men- 
tioned therein,  it  is  proper  to  make  the  statement  that  the  right  of 
such  authors  had  already  been  recognised  by  that  house,  which  had 
been  paying  royalties  on  its  republications  of  foreign  works  for  several 
years  previous  to  the  making  of  any  formal  arrangement. 


LIST  OF  OTHER  FRAGMENTS.  203 


LIST   OF   OTHER   FRAGMENTS. 

As  there  not  unfrequently  arise  doubts  and  disputes  re- 
specting an  author's  minor  productions,  I  have  thought  it  well 
to  give  here  a  list  of  further  letters  and  essays  from  time  to 
time  published.  I  have  omitted  them  from  the  body  of  the 
volume,  in  some  cases  because  of  their  comparative  unimpor- 
tance, and  in  other  cases  because  I  did  not  wish  to  perpetuate 
the  contained  personalities. 

1862,  Nov.  8  &  22.  Two  letters  in  the  Athenceum  entitled 
"  Theological  Criticism,"  being  replies  to  Dr.  Martineau. 

1882,  June.  "  Prof.  Goldwin  Smith  as  a  Critic."  Contem- 
porary Review. 

1884,  April  5.  "  Mental  Evolution  in  Animals."  Athenceum. 

1884,  Sept.  9.  "Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  and  the  Comtists." 
The  Times. 

1884,  Sept.  15.     "Mr.  H.  Spencer  and  Comte."     Ditto. 

1884,  July.   "  Retrogressive  Religion."  Nineteenth  Century. 

1884,  Nov.     "  Last  Words  about  Agnosticism."     Ditto. 

1889,  Nov.  V  &  15.  Letters  to  The  Times  on  the  Land 
Question. 

1890,  Febr.  Y.  Letter  to  the  Daily  Telegraph  entitled 
"  Reasoned  Savagery  so-called." 

1894,  Aug. — Sept.  Letters  to  the  Daily  Chronicle  on  the 
Land  Question. 

1895,  June.  "Mr.  Balfour's  Dialectics."  Fortnightly  Review. 

This  list  is  not  exhaustive.     There  are  several  letters  the 

dates  of  which  have  not  been  ascertained;  but  they  are  of 

little  significance. 

(1) 
THE   END. 


